Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2019-343-Minutes for Meeting July 03,2019 Recorded 7/31/2019
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541) 388-6570 Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2019-343 Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk Commissioners' Journal 07/31/2019 8:44:38 AM \yrES 12101,1111111111111111111111111111 9-343 FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY BOCC MEETING MINUTES 10:00AM WEDNESDAY, July 3, 2019 BARNES & SAWYER ROOMS Present were Commissioners Phil Henderson, Patti Adair, and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Torn Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; David Doyle, County Counsel; and Sharon Keith, Board Executive Assistant. Several citizens and identified representatives of the media were in attendance. This meeting was audio and video recorded and can be accessed at the Deschutes County Meeting Portal website http://deschutescountyor.iqm2.com/Citizens/Default.aspx CALL TO ORDER: Chair Henderson called the meeting to order at 10:04 am PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: CITIZEN INPUT: Commissioner Henderson announced the 100th year of the Deschutes County Fair that begins Wednesday, July 31, 2019. BOCC MEETING JULY 3, 2019 PAGE 1 OF 9 CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. ADAIR: Move approval of Consent Agenda DEBONE: Second Commissioner DeBone commented on this year's Budget Hearing and commends the work done by the departments. VOTE: ADAIR: Yes DEBONE: Yes HENDERSON: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Consent Agenda Items: 1. Consideration of Board Signature of Orders No. 2019-020 and 2019-021 for Dissolution of the Sisters Library District and La Pine Library Districts 2. Consideration of Board Signature of Letter Appointing Will Groves to the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council 3. Consideration of Board Signature of Letters Reappointing Scott Reich, Lindsey Lombard, and Nancy Blankenship to the Deschutes County Audit Committee 4. Consideration of Board Signature of Letter Thanking Wayne Yeatman for his Service to the Deschutes County Audit Committee 5. Approval of Minutes of the May 28, 2019 Budget Hearing 6. Approval of Minutes of the May 29, 2019 Budget Hearing 7. Approval of Minutes of the May 30, 2019 Budget Hearing 8. Approval of Minutes of the May 31, 2019 Budget Hearing CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE BLACK BUTTE RANCH SERVICE DISTRICT Consideration of Board Signature of Letters Appointing Rikki Goede, Lee Ferguson, and Curtiss Abbott to Black Butte Ranch County Service District BOCC MEETING JULY 3, 2019 PAGE 2 OF 9 DEBONE: Move approval ADAIR: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Yes HENDERSON: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Consideration of Board Signature of Letters Thanking Caryl Gibson, Paul Janssen, and Steve Amsberry to Black Butte Ranch County Service District DEBONE: Move approval ADAIR: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Yes HENDERSON: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried ACTION ITEMS: 9. Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2019-034, Public Use Restriction for Wildfire Prevention County Forester Ed Keith presented the public use fire restrictions that essentially mirror the restrictions of the Oregon Department Forestry and are adopted annually. A map showing the lands involved in the restrictions is available on line and in the County Forester's office. A press release announcing the restrictions will be issued. ADAIR: Move approval DEBONE: Second VOTE: ADAIR: Yes DEBONE: Yes HENDERSON: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried BOCC MEETING JULY 3, 2019 PAGE 3 OF 9 1O. PUBLIC HEARING: Reconsideration of Marijuana Text Amendments Tanya Saltzman, Community Development Department outlined the hearing procedures. Hearing no bias or conflicts of interest or challenges by those present, Commissioner Henderson opened the public hearing. Ms. Saltzman presented the staff report. Commissioner Henderson commented on the marijuana regulations and the efforts addressing the regulations in both the legislature and at Deschutes County. Commissioner DeBone spoke on the impacts of marijuana production and the use of the regulations to lessen the impact. Commissioner Adair commented on the impact to the Deschutes County and the process of the regulations. Commissioner Henderson called for public testimony. • Tammy Threlkeld presented testimony in opposition of marijuana production and requested the Board to opt out. • Susanne Ritter presented testimony in opposition of marijuana production and requested the Board to opt out. • Sam Davis presented testimony in opposition of marijuana production and requested the Board to opt out and give this back to the voters. Mr. Davis recommended the County hire an experienced engineer as a member of the Deschutes County staff and also commented on hemp and the similarity of marijuana which will enable illegal grows. • Gretchen Pederson asked to withdraw the statement she submitted and will send in a revised statement. • Robert Pederson asked to pass on testimony. • Keith Adams presented testimony in opposition of marijuana production and requested the Board to opt out. Mr. Adams presented letters from various members of the community in support of the opt out. These letters were from Karen Morris, Robert Wills, John Cooley, Sally Goya, Jeanette Kook, Jefrey Hamilton, Alison Hamilton, Peter Cooper, Donald BOCC MEETING JULY 3, 2019 PAGE 4 OF 9 Dumas, Lorna Dumas, Mark Burkhardt, Wendy Burkhardt, Sharon Burkhardt, Colin Burkhardt, Donald Detweiler, and Cheri Detweiler. • Stephanie Marshall, attorney for the petitioners challenging the County's amended MJ regulations presented testimony in support of marijuana operations and mostly adverse to the County's regulations. • Deborah Lee presented testimony in opposition of marijuana production. • Mike Hayes gave a power point presentation on hemp and marijuana and presented testimony in support of marijuana operations and requested that the County repeal all of its marijuana regulations. Commissioner Henderson requested a print copy of Mr. Hayes presentation. • Janet Nash presented testimony in opposition of marijuana production and requested the Board to opt out. • Liz Dickson presented testimony in opposition of marijuana production and urges the Board to opt out; she also supports the marijuana text amendments. Ms. Dickson presented a status update on marijuana production processing applications. • Charles E. Cook presented testimony in opposition of marijuana production and supports the opt out. • Carol Fair presented testimony in opposition of marijuana production and supports the opt out. • Margot Barron presented testimony in opposition of marijuana production and supports the opt out and asks the Board to protect the community. • Rowan Hollitz presented testimony in opposition of marijuana production and supports the opt out. • Lindsey Pate presented testimony in support of marijuana operations and production and opposes the marijuana text amendments. Ms. Pate sent an email with written testimony during this meeting. BOCC MEETING JULY 3, 2019 PAGE 5 OF 9 • Hunter Neubauer presented testimony in support of marijuana operations and production. • noel Gisler presented neutral testimony regarding marijuana production. • Susan Altman presented testimony in opposition of marijuana production and supporting an opt out. Ms. Altman presented copies of comments from 1644 people that have voiced general opposition to MJ operations in the County. • Brad Wehde presented testimony in support of marijuana production. • Linda Hopmann asked to provide testimony later via email. • Steven Paulding presented testimony in support of stricter regulations, text amendments, opting out, and unannounced inspections. • Nunzie Gould presented testimony in opposition of marijuana production and supports opting out. Ms. Gould commented on the federal farm bill and the history of the Deschutes County in regards to the marijuana regulations. Ms. Gould submitted written testimony. Ms. Gould asked for County Counsel to explain why the Board withdrew the text amendments for reconsideration. • Ron "Rondo" Boozell presented testimony in support of marijuana production. • Captain Deron McMaster and provided testimony on behalf of Deschutes County Sheriff Shane Nelson. Captain McMaster relayed that Sheriff Nelson has expressed full support of the Board of Commissioners and that the Sheriff supports opting out. Ms. Saltzman explained the documents relative to this hearing are located on the public meeting portal on the Deschutes County website at www.deschutes.org as well as the Community Development Department webpage at www.deschutes.org/marijuana With no further public testimony, Commissioner Henderson closed the oral portion of the hearing. The written record will be held open through 11:59 BOCC MEETING JULY 3, 2019 PAGE 6 OF 9 p.m. on Sunday, July 21. Initial deliberations are scheduled for the Board of Commissioner's meeting on Wednesday, August 7, 2019. Commissioner DeBone spoke on the general issue of opting out from marijuana production in rural Deschutes County. County Counsel Doyle explained the process of an opt out ordinance including the path for voters to consider the opt out at the November 2020 General Election. Doyle stressed that any opt out imposed by the Commissioners would only apply to the rural unincorporated areas of the County and would not have any impact within the Cities. LUNCH RECESS: At the time of 12:30 p.m. the Board went into recess and the meeting was reconvened at 1:30 p.m. in the Allen Conference Room. OTHER ITEMS: • State of the County Address continued discussion: Laura Skundrick, Administrative Assistant presented the revised presentation for the Bend Chamber of Commerce State of the County Address for July 9. The Board made final recommendations for revisions. EXECUTIVE SESSIONS: At the time of 1:58 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations. The Board came out of Executive Session at 2:18 p.m. for the following motion: DEBONE: Motion to proceed as discussed ADAIR: Second BOCC MEETING JULY 3, 2019 PAGE 7 OF 9 VOTE: DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Yes HENDERSON: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried At the time of 2:19 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations. The Board came out of Executive Session at 2:26 p.m. for the following motion: DEBONE: Motion to proceed as discussed contingent upon Commissioner Henderson's due diligence review (to be completed today) and subsequent communications with Mr. Lewis ADAIR: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Yes HENDERSON: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried At the time of 2:28 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations. The Board came out of Executive Session at 2:37 p.m. At the time of 2:40 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (d) Labor Negotiations. The Board came out of Executive Session at 2:45 p.m. OTHER ITEMS continued: • PAC West will attend the Legislative Update Call on Tuesday, July 9, 2019. • The consideration of a Fair and Expo Rodeo advertisement is presented annually and the Board supported an advertisement. BOCC MEETING JULY 3, 2019 PAGE 8 OF 9 ADJOURN Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:49 p.m. DATED this Day of Commissioners. ATTEST: RECORDING SECRETARY BOCC MEETING 2019 for the Deschutes County Board of PHILIP G. 4NDERSON, CHAIR PATTI ADAIR, VICE CHAIR ANTHONY DEBONE, COMMISSIONER JULY 3, 2019 PAGE 9 OF 9 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - www.deschutes.org BOCC MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, JULY 3, 2019 Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Center - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend This meeting is open to the public, usually streamed live online and video recorded. To watch it online, visit www.deschutes.or•/meetin .s. Pursuant to ORS 192.640, this agenda includes a list of the main topics that are anticipated to be considered or discussed. This notice does not limit the Board's ability to address other topics. Meetings are subject to cancellation without notice. Item start times are estimated and subject to change without notice. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT CONSENT AGENDA 1. Consideration of Board Signature of Orders No. 2019-020 and 2019-021 for Dissolution of the Sisters Library District and La Pine Library Districts 2. Consideration of Board Signature of Letter Appointing Will Groves to the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council 3. Consideration of Board Signature of Letters Reappointing Scott Reich, Lindsey Lombard, and Nancy Blankenship to the Deschutes County Audit Committee 4. Consideration of Board Signature of Letter Thanking Wayne Yeatman for his Service to the Deschutes County Audit Committee Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Wednesday, July 3, 2019 Page 1 of 3 5. Approval of Minutes of the May 28, 2019 Budget Hearing 6. Approval of Minutes of the May 29, 2019 Budget Hearing 7. Approval of Minutes of the May 30, 2019 Budget Hearing 8. Approval of Minutes of the May 31, 2019 Budget Hearing CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE BLACK BUTTE RANCH SERVICE DISTRICT Consideration of Board Signature of Letters Appointing Rikki Goede, Lee Ferguson, and Curtiss Abbott to Black Butte Ranch County Service District Board Consideration of Board Signature of Letters Thanking Caryl Gibson, Paul Janssen, and Steve Amsberry for Service on the Black Butte Ranch Service District RECONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF DESCHUTES COUNTY ACTION ITEMS 9. 10:15 AM Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2019-034, Public Use Restrictions for Wildfire Prevention - Ed Keith, Forester 10. 10:25 AM PUBLIC HEARING: Reconsideration of Marijuana Text Amendments - Tanya Saltzman, Associate Planner LUNCH RECESS OTHER ITEMS: These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640. Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Wednesday, July 3, 2019 Page 2 of 3 EXECUTIVE SESSION Executive Sessions under ORS 192.660 (2) (d) Labor Negotiations and ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues; or other executive session categories. Executive sessions are closed to the public; however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines, are open to the media. ADJOURN B� Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need rli accommodations to make participation possible, please call (department Admin contact) (541) 617-4747. FUTURE MEETINGS: Additional meeting dates available at www.deschutes.or•/meetin•calendar Meeting dates and times are subject to change. If you have questions, please call (541) 388-6572. Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Wednesday, July 3, 2019 Page 3 of 3 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Wednesday Meeting of July 3, 2019 DATE: June 27, 2019 FROM: Tanya Saltzman, Community Development, TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING: Reconsideration of Marijuana Text Amendments The Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing for the reconsideration of the County's marijuana text amendments (File No. 247 -18 -000540 -TA). Ordinance 2018-012 was adopted on October 24, 2018; the County received a Notice of Intent to Appeal (NITA) on November 13, 2018, and a Petition for Review to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) was filed by twelve petitioners on February 12, 2019. The County subsequently filed a Notice of Withdrawal of the ordinance and is currently undergoing a reconsideration of the text amendments. TES c -MM i MTV DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Tanya Saltzman, Associate Planner DATE: June 27, 2019 SUBJECT: Reconsideration of Marijuana Text Amendments The Board of County Commissioners (Board) will conduct a public hearing on July 3, 2019 to reconsider a series of text amendments pertaining to the regulation and enforcement of recreational marijuana on rural lands in Deschutes County. A work session was held with the Board on June 24, 2019, at which time the proposed amendments and public comment to date were provided.' I. OVERVIEW OF PROCESS TO DATE On June 1, 2016, Deschutes County adopted Ordinance 2016-019, and on June 15, 2016, Ordinances 2016-013, 2016-014, 2016-015, 2016-016, 2016-017, and 2016-018, implementing comprehensive land use amendments governing marijuana production, processing, and retailing in unincorporated Deschutes County (the "Original Marijuana Regulations"). The Original Marijuana Regulations were not appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA"), and thereby were deemed "acknowledged" pursuant to OAR 660-018-0085 after the County provided notice of the ordinances are required by state law. After adopting the Original Marijuana Regulations, the Board of County Commissioners (the "Board," or individually, the "Commissioners") indicated an intent to consider technical correction after gaining https://deschutescountvor.igm2.com/Citizens/Detail LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetinglD=2333&MediaPosition=&ID=2737&Cs sClass= additional experience regulating the entirely new marijuana industry and land use. As such, the Board directed staff to prepare a Marijuana Regulatory Assessment sixteen months after the Original Marijuana Regulations took effect, summarizing marijuana applications received between September 2016 and September 2017. The draft Marijuana Regulatory Assessment was released on April 2, 2018. Since that date, the Board conducted eight work sessions to discuss requisite technical corrections and clarifications. Informed by the work sessions and their experiences adjudicating quasi-judicial appeals of marijuana land use applications, the Commissioners requested that County staff prepare specific draft text amendments designed to provide additional clarity to both the public and the growing marijuana industry (the "Marijuana Text Amendments"). Staff's proposed amendments were then first formally presented to the Planning Commission for review on August 9, 2018.2 The Board subsequently conducted a public hearing on August 28, 2018, to consider Ordinance 2018- 012, formerly adopting the Marijuana Text Amendments as reviewed by the Planning Commission. Public comments received during the open record period, August 29 through September 14, 2018, were provided to the Board for a work session held on September 24, 2018 to review options for next steps.' The Board began deliberations on the proposed amendments on October 1, 20184 and continued them on October 17, 2018.5 Informed by the public process and comments, the Board directed staff to make further edits. Staff offered a revised version of Ordinance 2018-012 for consideration of first reading on October 24, 2018. And, first and second reading were ultimately adopted by emergency on October 24. Differing from the Original Marijuana Regulations, twelve petitioners filed a Notice of Intent to Appeal with LUBA challenging the County's new "Marijuana Text Amendments" on November 13, 2018. The petitioners filed their Petition for Review on February 12, 2019, arguing new and expanded issues that were not previously raised before the Board. As such, on February 28, 2019, Deschutes County filed with LUBA a Notice of Withdrawal to thereby provide the petitioners the opportunity to raise their new arguments to the Board in a continued public process. This continued public process will also provide both the County and other proponents of the Marijuana Text Amendments the opportunity to augment the record and respond to the petitioners' assignments of error, thus ensuring a more thorough local vetting before the petitioners' arguments are considered by LUBA on appeal. At the completion of the continued public process, the Board may repeal the Marijuana Text Amendments, amend the Marijuana Text Amendments, or take no action, in which case the Marijuana Text Amendments remain unaltered. A corresponding ordinance may be prepared to reflect Board direction. Assuming the petitioners proceed with their LUBA appeal, any documents and testimony provided to the Board during the continued public process (such as this memorandum) will be added to the record before LUBA. 2 https://deschutescountyor.igm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=2047 https://deschutescountyor.igm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1934&Inline=True ° https://deschutescountyor.igm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1917 https://deschutescountyor.igm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=2059 Page 2 of 3 II. PUBLIC COMMENT As noted at the Board work session, since the County submitted the Notice of Withdrawal, two written public comments have been received from the following parties and were included as attachments to the work session memorandum:6 • Stephanie Marshall, Bennu Law (successor entity to Clifton Cannabis Law LLC) • Jenny Mueller, Cannabis Nation Inc. III. NEXT STEPS At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board can choose one of the following options: • Continue the hearing to a date and time certain; • Close the oral portion of the hearing and leave the written record open to a date and time certain; or • Close the hearing and commence deliberations. Attachments: A. Marijuana Text Amendments - adopted October 24, 2018' 6 https://deschutescountyor.igm2.com/Citizens/Detail LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=2333&MediaPosition=&ID=2737&Cs sClass= The attached text amendments utilize redlines to indicate adopted changes that deleted, replaced, or otherwise altered text from the Original Marijuana Regulations only. The redlined text amendments that were included as attachments to Ordinance No. 2018-012 also include interim edits that were considered—but not necessarily adopted—during the public process, in addition to the final adopted changes. Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT A Chapter 9.12. RIGHT TO FARM 9.12.020. Purpose and Scope. * * * 9.12.020. Purpose and Scope. A. It is the purpose of DCC 9.12 to protect farm and forest -based economically productive activities of Deschutes County in order to assure the continued health, safety and prosperity of its residents. Farm and forest uses sometimes offend, annoy, interfere with or otherwise affect others located on or near farm and forest lands. Deschutes County has concluded in conformance with ORS chapter 30 that persons located on or near farm and forest lands must accept resource uses and management practices. B. DCC 9.12 is intended to limit the availability of remedies based on nuisance or trespass, rights of action and claims for relief and issuance of citations for violations over which Deschutes County has jurisdiction, when they otherwise would either have an adverse impact on farm and forest uses that Deschutes County seeks to protect, or would impair full use of the farm and forest resource base within Deschutes County. C. Scope. DCC Chapter 9.12 (The Deschutes County Right To Farm Ordinance) applies to all crops. However, subject to ORS 475B, Cannabis regulation, the governing body of a county may adopt ordinances that impose reasonable regulations on marijuana production, processing, wholesaling, and retailing. (Ord. 2018-012 §1, 2018; Ord. 2003-021 §21, 2003; Ord. 95-024 §2, 1995) Chapter 9.12 1 (04/2003) ATTACH VIEN A Chapter 18.24 REDMOND URBAN RESERVE AREA COMBINING ZONE 18.24.030. Conditional Uses Permitted; Prohibition. 18.24.030. Conditional Uses Permitted; Prohibition. A. Subject to the prohibitions provided for in DCC 18.24.030(B), Uses uses permitted conditionally in the RURA Redmond Urban Reserve Area Combining Zone shall be those identified as conditional uses in the underlying zoning districts. Conditional uses shall be subject to all conditions of those zones as well as the requirements of this chapter. B. The following uses are prohibited and not permitted in the Redmond Urban Reserve Area Combining Zone: 1. Marijuana production; and 2. Marijuana processing, (Ord. 2018-012 §2, 2018; Ord. 2005-024 §1, 2005) Chapter 18.24 1 (2/2008) ATTACHMENT A Chapter 18.116. SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS 18.116.330 Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing 18.116.340 Marijuana Production Registered by the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) * * * 18.116.330. Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing A. Applicability. Section 18.116.330 applies to: 1. Marijuana Production in the EFU, MUA 10, and RI zones. 2, Marijuana Processing in the EFU, MUA 10, TeC, TeCR, TuC, TuI, RI, and SUBP zones 3. Marijuana Retailing in the RSC, TeC, TeCR, TuC, TuI, RC, RI, SUC, SUTC, and SUBP zones. 4. Marijuana Wholesaling in the RSC, TeC, TeCR, TuC, RC, SUC, and SUBP zones. B. Marijuana production and marijuana processing. Marijuana production and marijuana processing shall be subject to the following standards and criteria: 1. Minimum Lot Area. a. In the EFU and MUA 10 zones, the subject legal lot of record shall have a minimum lot area of five (5) acres. 2. Indoor Production and Processing. a. In the MUA 10 zone, marijuana production and processing shall be located entirely structures is prohibited. b a.In the EFU zone, marijuana production and processing shall only be located in buildings, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures. ca). In all zones, marijuana production and processing are prohibited in any outdoor area. 3. Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size. In the EFU zone, the maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall apply as follows: a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: 2,500 square feet. b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres to less than 20 acres in lot area: 5,000 square feet. The maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants may be increased to 10,000 square feet upon demonstration by the applicant to the County that: i. The marijuana production operation was lawfully established prior to January 1, 2015; and ii. The increased mature marijuana plant canopy area will not generate adverse impact of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy or access greater than the impacts associated with a 5,000 square foot canopy area operation. c. Parcels equal to or greater than 20 acres to less than 40 acres in lot area: 10,000 square feet. d. Parcels equal to or greater than 40 acres to less than 60 acres in lot area: 20,000 square feet. e. Parcels equal to or greater than 60 acres in lot area: 40,000 square feet. /1. Maximum Building Floor Area. In the MUA 10 zone, the maximum building floor area property shall be: .1 -- b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres: 5,000 square feet. &4. Limitation on License/Grow Site per Parcel. No more than one (1) Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) licensed marijuana production or Oregon Health Authority (OHA) Chapter 18.116 (11/2018) ATTACHMENT A registered medical marijuana grow site shall be allowed per legal parcel or lot. 65. Setbacks. The following setbacks shall apply to all marijuana production and processing areas and buildings: a. Minimum Yard Setback/Distance from Lot Lines: 100 150 feet. b. Setback from an off-site dwelling: 300 100 feet. For the purposes of this criterion, an off-site dwelling includes those proposed off-site dwellings with a building permit application submitted to Deschutes County prior to submission of the marijuana production or processing application to Deschutes County. c. Setback from Federal public lands: 300 feet. e- dW Exception: Any reduction to these setback requirements may be granted by the Planning Director or Hearings Body provided the applicant demonstrates the reduced setbacks afford equal or greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy, and access impacts. 76. Separation Distances. Minimum separation distances shall apply as follows: a. The use applicant property line shall be located a minimum of 1000 1,320 feet from: i. A public elementary or secondary school for which attendance is compulsory under Oregon Revised Statutes 339.010, et seq., including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school; ii. A private or parochial elementary or secondary school, teaching children as described in ORS 339.030(1)(a), including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school; iii. A licensed child care center or licensed preschool, including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the child care center or preschool. This does not include licensed or unlicensed child care which occurs at or in residential structures; iv. A youth activity center; and v. National monuments and state parks.State, local, and municipal parks, including land owned by a parks district; vi. Redmond Urban Reserve Area; vii. The boundary of any local jurisdiction that has opted out of Oregon's recreational marijuana program; and viii. Any other lot or parcel approved by Deschutes County for marijuana production. b. For purposes of DCC 18.116.330(B)(76), all distances shall be measured from the lot line of the affected properties listed in DCC 18.116.330(B)(76)(a) to the closest point of the buildings and land areaapplicant's property line of land occupied by the marijuana producer or marijuana processor. c. A change in use of another property to those identified in DCC 18.116.330(B)(76) shall not result in the marijuana producer or marijuana processor being in violation of DCC 18.116.330(B)(76) if the use is: i. Pending a local land use decision; ii. Licensed or registered by the State of Oregon; or iii. Lawfully established. 47. Access. Marijuana production over 5,000 square feet of canopy area for mature marijuana pluntssites shall comply with the following standards. a. Have frontage on and legal direct access from a constructed public, county, or state road; or b. Have access from a private road or easement serving only the subject property. c. If the property takes access via a private road or easement which also serves other properties, the applicant shall obtain written consent to utilize the easement or private road for marijuana production access from all owners who have access rights to the private road or easement. The written consent shall: Chapter 18.116 (11/2018) ATTACHMENT A i. Be on a form provided by the County and shall contain the following information; ii. Include notarized signatures of all owners, persons and properties holding a recorded interest in the private road or easement; iii. Include a description of the proposed marijuana production or marijuana processing operation; and iv. Include a legal description of the private road or easement. 98. Lighting. Lighting shall be regulated as follows: a. Inside building lighting, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures, used for marijuana production shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following daysunset to sunrise. b. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part. c. Light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana grow lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. 1-99. Odor. The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control system which must at all times prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. As used in DCC 18.116.330(B)(1-09), building means the building, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and other similar structures, used for marijuana production or marijuana processing. Odor produced by marijuana production and processing shall comply with the following: a. Odor control plan. To ensure that the standard stated in DCC 18.116.330(B)(9) is continuously met, the applicant shall submit an odor control plan prepared and stamped by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon that includes the following; i. The mechanical engineer's qualifications and experience with system design and operational audits of effective odor control and mitigation systems; ii. A detailed analysis of the methodology, including verified operational effectiveness, that will be relied upon to effectively control odor on the subject property; iii. A detailed description of any odor control systems that will be utilized, including operational schedules and maintenance intervals; iv. Contingence measures if any aspect of the odor control plan fails or is not followed, or if it is otherwise shown that the standard stated in DCC 18.116.330(B)(9) is not met; v. Testing protocols and intervals; and vi. Identification of the responsible parties tasked with implementing each aspect of the odor control plan. b. Modifications. Significant modifications to the odor control plan, including but not limited to replacement of one system for another or a change in odor control methodolo . shall be a • • roved in the same manner as a modification to a land use action pursuant to DCC 22.36.040. c. The system shall at all times be maintained in working order and shall be in use. a. The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control system which must at all property. will control odor so as not to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. c. Private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with odor impacts are Chapter 18.116 (11/2018) ATTAC H authorized, if at all, as provided in applicable state statute. d. The odor control system shall: i. Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute inultiplied by height) divided by three. The filter(s) shall be rated for the required CFM; or ii. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve equal to or greater odor mitigation than provided by (i) above. e. The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. 4410. Noise. Noise produced by marijuana production and marijuana processing shall comply with the following: a. Standard. To prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property, sustained noise including ambient noise levels shall not be detectable beyond the applicant's property line above 45 dB(A) in total between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am the following day. i. For purposes of DCC 18.116.330(B)(10), "sustained noise" shall mean noise lasting more than five continuous minutes or five total minutes in a one hour period from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air condition, odor control, fans and similar functions associated with marijuana production and processing. b. Noise control plan. To ensure that the standard stated in DCC 18.116.330(B)(10) is continuously met, the applicant shall submit a noise control plan prepared and stamped by a mechanical engineer licenses in the State of Oregon that includes the following: i. The mechanical engineer's qualifications and experience with system design and operational audit of effective noise control and mitigation systems; ii. A detailed analysis of the methodology that will be relied upon to effectively control noise on the subject property; iii. A detailed description of any noise control systems that will be utilized, including operational schedules and maintenance intervals; iv. Contingence measures if any aspect of the noise control plan fails or is not followed, or if it is otherwise shown that the standard stated in DCC 18.116.330(B)(10) is not met; v. Testing protocols and intervals; and vi. Identification of the responsible parties tasked with implementing each aspect of the noise control plan. c. Modifications. Significant modifications to the noise control plan, including but not limited to replacement of one system for another or a change in noise control methodology shall be approved in the same manner as a modification to a land use action pursuant to DCC 22.36.040. a. Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air condition, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. b. Sustained noise from marijuana production is exempt from protections of DCC 9.12 • r • • . . permmi 1211. Screening and Fencing. The following screening standards shall apply to greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar non -rigid structures and land areas used for marijuana production and processing: a. All marijuana uses, buildings, structures, fences, and storage and parking areas, whether a building permit is required or not, in the Landscape Management Combining Zone, shall comply with and require DCC 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Chapter 18.116 (11/2018) WN A ATTACHMENT A Zone approval. Subject to DCC 18.81, Landscape Management Combining Zone approval, if applicable. b. Fencing and screening shall be finished in a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape and shall not be constructed of temporary materials such as plastic sheeting, hay bales, tarps, etc., and shall be subject to DCC 18.88, Wildlife Area Combining Zone, if applicable. c. Razor wire, or similar, shall be obscured from view or colored a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape. d. The existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the public right-of- way or adjacent properties shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. This provision does not prohibit maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act; or agricultural use of the land. 4-312. Water. Applicant shall state the anticipated amount of water to be used, as stated on the water right, certificate, permit, or other water use authorization, on an annual basis. Water use from any source for marijuana production shall comply with all applicable state statutes and regulations. The applicant shall provide: a. An Oregon Water Resources Department (ORWD) Certificate(s), permit, or other water use authorization proving necessary water supply of proper classification will be available for intended use during required seasons, regardless of source; orA copy of a water right permit, certificate, or other water use authorization from the Oregon Water Resource Department; or b. A source water provider Will Serve statement referencing valid Water Right to be utilized, if any, as well as a Will Haul statement, including the name and contact information of the water hauler; orA statement that water is supplied from a public or provider; or c. In the alternative to (a) and (b) above, proof from Oregon Water Resources Department that the water supply to be used does not require a Water Right for the specific application use classification, volume, and season of use (i.e., roof -collected water).Proof from the Oregon Water Resources Department that the water to be used is from a source that does not require a water right. d. If the applicant is proposing a year-round production facility, the water right, certificate, permit, or other water use authorization must address all permitted sources of water for when surface water is unavailable. e. In the event that the water source for the facility changes from the use of an ORWD certificate, permit, or other water use authorization to the use of a water hauler, or from the use of a water hauler to another source, a modification to a land use action pursuant to DCC 22.36.040 is required. 4413. Fire protection for processing of cannabinoid extracts. Processing of cannabinoid extracts shall only be permitted on properties located within the boundaries of or under contract with a fire protection district. 4414. Utility Verification. Utility statements identifying the proposed operation, or operational characteristics such as required electrical load and timing of such electrical loads and aA statement from each utility company proposed to serve the operation, stating that each such company is able and willing to serve the operation, shall be provided. The utility shall state that it has reviewed the new service or additional load request and determined if existing capacity can serve the load or if a system upgrade is required. Any new service request or additional load request requiring an upgrade shall be performed per the serving utility's stated policy. 4-615. Security Cameras. If security cameras are used, they shall be directed to record Chapter 18.116 (11/2018) ATTACHMENT A only the subject property and public rights-of-way, except as required to comply with requirements of the OLCC or the OHA. 4-716. Secure Waste Disposal. a. Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee or OHA Person Responsible for the Grow Site (PRMG). ab. Wastewater generated during marijuana production and/or processing shall be disposed of in compliance with applicable, federal, state, and local laws and regulations. 18. Residency. In the MUA 10 zone, a minimum of one of the following shall reside in a dwelling unit on the subject property: a. An owner of the subject property; b. A holder of an OLCC license for marijuana production, provided that the license applies to the subject property; or c. A person registered with the OHA as a person designated to produce marijuana by a registry identification cardholder, provided that the registration applies to the subject property. 1-917. Nonconformance. All medical marijuana grow sites lawfully established prior to June 8, 2016 by the Oregon Health Authority shall comply with Ordinance No. 2016-015 and with -the provisions of DCC 18.116.330(B)(9) by September 8, 2016 and with the provisions of DCC 18.116.330(B)(10-12, 16, 17) by December 8, 2016. 2018. Prohibited Uses. a. In the EFU zone, the following uses are prohibited: i. A new dwelling used in conjunction with a marijuana crop; ii. A farm stand, as described in ORS 215.213(1)(r) or 215.283(1)(o), used in conjunction with a marijuana crop; iii. A commercial activity, as described in ORS 215.213(2)(c) or 215.283(2)(a), carried on in conjunction a marijuana crop; and iv. Agri -tourism and other commercial events and activities in conjunction with a marijuana crop. b. In the MUA 10 Zone, the following uses are prohibited: i. Commercial activities in conjunction with farm use when carried on in conjunction with a marijuana crop. eb. In the EFU, MUA 10, and Rural Industrial zones, the following uses are prohibited on the same property as marijuana production: i. Guest Lodge. ii. Guest Ranch. iii. Dude Ranch. iv. Destination Resort. v. Public Parks. vi. Private Parks. vii. Events, Mass Gatherings and Outdoor Mass Gatherings. viii. Bed and Breakfast. ix. Room and Board Arrangements. 19. Compliance. a. Odor. On-going compliance with the odor control plan is mandatory and shall be ensured with a permit condition of approval. The odor control plan does not supersede required compliance with the standard set forth in DCC 18.116.330(B)(9). If provided in applicable state statutes, private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with odor impacts are authorized. b. Noise. On-going compliance with the noise control plan is mandatory and shall be ensured with a permit condition of approval. The noise control plan does not supersede Chapter 18.116 (11/2018) ATTACHMENT A required compliance with the standard set forth in DCC 18.116.330(B)(10). If provided in applicable state statutes, private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with noise impacts are authorized. C. Marijuana Retailing. Marijuana retailing, including recreational and medical marijuana sales, shall be subject to the following standards and criteria: 1. Hours. Hours of operation shall be no earlier than 9:00 a.m. and no later than 7:00 p.m. on the same day. 2. Odor. The building, or portion thereof, used for marijuana retailing shall be designed or equipped to prevent detection of marijuana plant odor off premise by a person of normal sensitivity. 3. Window Service. The use shall not have a walk-up or drive-thru window service. 4. Secure Waste Disposal. Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee or OHA registrant. 5. Minors. No person under the age of 21 shall be permitted to be present in the building, or portion thereof, occupied by the marijuana retailer, except as allowed by state law. 6. Co -Location of Related Activities and Uses. Marijuana and tobacco products shall not be smoked, ingested, or otherwise consumed in the building space occupied by the marijuana retailer. In addition, marijuana retailing shall not be co -located on the same lot or parcel or within the same building with any marijuana social club or marijuana smoking club. 7. Separation Distances. Minimum separation distances shall apply as follows: a. The use shall be located a minimum of 1,000 feet from: i. A public elementary or secondary school for which attendance is compulsory under Oregon Revised Statutes 339.010, et seq., including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school; ii. A private or parochial elementary or secondary school, teaching children as described in ORS 339.030(1)(a), including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school; iii. A licensed child care center or licensed preschool, including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the child care center or preschool. This does not include licensed or unlicensed family child care which occurs at or in residential structures; iv. A youth activity center; v. National monuments and state parks; and vi. Any other marijuana retail facility licensed by the OLCC or marijuana dispensary registered with the OHA. b. For purposes of DCC 18.116.330(BC)(7), distance shall be measured from the lot line of the affected property to the closest point of the building space occupied by the marijuana retailer. For purposes of DCC 18.116.330(HC)(7)(a)( vi), distance shall be measured from the closest point of the building space occupied by one marijuana retailer to the closest point of the building space occupied by the other marijuana retailer. c. A change in use to another property to a use identified in DCC 18.116.330(14C)(7), after a marijuana retailer has been licensed by or registered with the State of Oregon shall not result in the marijuana retailer being in violation of DCC 18.116.330(B)(7). D. Inspections and Annual Reporting 1. An annual report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department by the real property owner or licensee, if different, each February 1, documenting all of the following as of December 31 of the previous year, including the applicable fee as adopted in the current County Fee Schedule and a fully executed Consent to Inspect Premises form: a. Documentation demonstrating compliance with the: i. Land use decision and permits. Chapter 18.116 (11/2018) ATTACHMENT .. A ii. Fire, health, safety, waste water, and building codes and laws. iii. State of Oregon licensing requirements. b. An optional statement of annual water use. Failure to timely submit the annual report, fee, and Consent to Inspect Premises form or to demonstrate compliance with DCC 18.116.330(C)(1)(a) shall serve as acknowledgement by the real property owner and licensee that the otherwise allowed use is not in compliance with Deschutes County Code; authorizes permit revocation under DCC Title 22, and may be relied upon by the State of Oregon to deny new or license renewal(s) for the subject use. c. Other information as may be reasonably required by the Planning Director to ensure compliance with Deschutes County Code, applicable State regulations, and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. d. As a condition of approval, the applicant must consent in writing to allow Deschutes County to, randomly and without prior notice, inspect the premises and ascertain the extent and effectiveness of the odor control system(s), compliance with Deschutes County Code, and applicable conditions of approval. Inspections may be conducted by the County up to three (3) times per calendar year, including one inspection prior to the initiation of use. Marijuana Control Plan to be established and maintained by the Community Development Department. e. Conditions of Approval Agreement to be established and maintained by the Community Development Department. :f. Documentation that System Development Charges have been paid. g. This information shall be public record subject to ORS 192.502(17). f -.h. Failure to timely submit the annual report, fee, and Consent to Inspect Premises form or to demonstrate compliance with DCC 18.116.330(D)(1)(a) shall serve as acknowledgement by the real property owner and licensee that the otherwise allowed use is not in compliance with Deschutes County Code; authorized permit revocation under DCC Title 22, and may be relied upon by the State of Oregon to deny new or license renewal(s) for the subject use. (Ord. 2018-012 §3, 2018; Ord. 2016-015 §10, 2016) 18.116.340. Marijuana Production Registered by the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) A. Applicability. Section 18.116.340 applies to: 1. All marijuana production registered by OHA prior to June 1, 2016; and 2. All marijuana production registered by OHA on or after June 1 2016 until the effective date of Ordinances 2016-015, 2016-16, 2016-17, and 2016-18, at which time Ordinances 2016- 015 through Ordinance 2016-018 shall apply. B. All marijuana production registered by OHA prior to June 1, 2016 shall comply with the following standards by September 15, 2016: 1. Lighting. Lighting shall be regulated as follows: a. Inside building lighting, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures, used for marijuana production shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following daysunset to sunrise. b. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part. c. Light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana grow lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. C. All marijuana production registered by OHA prior to June 1, 2016 shall comply with the following standards by December 15, 2016: 1. Odor. As used in DCC 18.1163-38340(BC)(-19), building means the building, including Chapter 18.116 (11/2018) AT N.. .� greenhouses, hoop houses, and other similar structures, used for marijuana production or marijuana processing. a. The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control system which must at all times prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. b. An odor control system is deemed permitted only after the applicant submits a report by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon demonstrating that the system will control odor so as not to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. c. Private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with odor impacts are authorized, if at all, as provided in applicable state statute. d. The odor control system shall: i. Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The filter(s) shall be rated for the required CFM; or ii. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve equal to or greater odor mitigation than provided by i. above. e. The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. 2. Noise. Noise produced by marijuana production and marijuana processing shall comply with the following: a. Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air condition, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. b. Sustained noise from marijuana production is not subject to the Right to Farm protections in DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.395. Intermittent noise for accepted farming practices is however permitted. 3. Screening and Fencing. The following screening standards shall apply to greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar non -rigid structures and land areas used for marijuana production and processing: a. Subject to DCC 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone approval, if applicable. b. Fencing shall be finished in a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape and shall not be constructed of temporary materials such as plastic sheeting, hay bales, tarps, etc., and shall be subject to DCC 18.88, Wildlife Area Combining Zone, if applicable. c. Razor wire, or similar, shall be obscured from view or colored a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape. d. The existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the public right-of- way or adjacent properties shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. This provision does not prohibit maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act; or agricultural use of the land. 4. Water. The applicant shall provide: a. A copy of a water right permit, certificate, or other water use authorization from the Oregon Water Resource Department; or b. A statement that water is supplied from a public or private water provider, along with the name and contact information of the water provider; or c. Proof from the Oregon Water Resources Department that the water to be used is from a source that does not require a water right. 5. Security Cameras. If security cameras are used, they shall be directed to record only the Chapter 18.116 (11/2018) ATACHM-RJ A subject property and public rights-of-way, except as required to comply with requirements of the OLCC or the OHA. 6. Secure Waste Disposal. Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee or OHA Person Responsible for the Grow Site (PRMG). D. All new marijuana production registered by OHA on or after June 1, 2016 shall comply with DCC 18.116.340330(A, B, and D -G). and the following standards: _1. Shall only be located in the following zones a. EFU; b. MUA 10; or c. Rural Industrial in the vicinity of Deschutes Junction. 2. Minimum Lot Area. b. In the EFU and MUA 10 zones, the subject property shall have a minimum lot area of five (5) acres. 3. Maximum Building Floor Area. In the MUA 10 zone, the maximum building floor area shall be: • a, •- as - b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres: 5,000 square feet. d.. Setbacks. The following setbacks shall apply to all marijuana production areas and buildings: a. Minimum Yard Setback/Distance from Lot Lines: 100 feet. b. Setback from an off site dwelling: 300 feet. . auilding pen -nit application submitted to Deschutes County prior to submission of the marijuana production or processing application to Deschutes County. c. Exception: Reductions to these setback requirements may be granted at the discretion reduced setbacks afford equal or gr-ater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy, and access impacts. 5. Indoor Production and Processing. . .. 1 I _ ♦ e fully enclosed buildings with conventional or post framed opaque, rigid walls and roof covering. Use of greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar non rigid structures is prohibited. b. In the EFU zone, marijuana production shall only be located in buildings, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures. c. In all zones, marijuana production is prohibited in any outdoor area. 6. Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size. In the EFU zone, the maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall apply as follows: a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot ar u: 2,500 square feet. b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres to less than 20 acres in lot ar a: 5,000 square 10,000 square feet upon demonstration by the applicant to the County that: 2015; and ii. The increased mature marijuana plant canopy arca will not generate adverse impact of visual, eller, noise, associated with a 5,000 square foot canopy area operation. feet, Chapter 18.116 (11/2018) ATTACHMENT A c. Parcels equal to or greater than 60 acres in lot area: 10,000 square feet. 7. Separation Distances. Minimum separation distances shall apply as follows: a. The use shall be located a minimum of 1000 feet from: i. A public elementary or secondary school for which attendance is compulsory under Oregon Revised Statutes 339.010, et seq., including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school; ii. A private or parochial elementary or secondary school, teaching children as described in ORS 339.030(1)(a), including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school; iii. A licenced child care center or licensed preschool, including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the child care center or preschool. This does not include licensed or unlicensed child care which occurs at or in residential structures; iv. A youth activity center; and v. National monuments and state parks. b. For purposes of DCC 18.116.330(B)(7), all distances shall be measured from the lot the buildings and land area occupied by the marijuana producer or marijuana processor. c. A change in use of another property to those identified in DCC 18.116.330(B)(7) shall not result in the marijuana producer or marijuana processor being in violation of DCC 18.116.330(B)(7) if the use is: i. Pending a local land use decision; ii. Registered by the State of Oregon; or iii. Lawfully established. S. Access. Marijuana production over 5,000 square feet of canopy ar-a for mature marijuana plants shall comply with the following standards. road; or • c. If the property takes access via a private road or easement which also serves other private road or-asement. The written consent shall: i. Be on a form provided by the County and shall contain the following information; ii. Include notarized signatures of all owners, persons and properties holding a recorded interest in the private road or easement; iii. Include a description of the proposed marijuana production or marijuana processing operation; and iv. Include a legal description of the private road or easement. 9. Residencynth e MUA 10 zone, a minimum of one of the following shall reside in a a. An owner of the subject property; or 10. Annual Reporting. An annual report shall be submitted to the Community Development applicable fee as adopted in the current County Fee Schedule and a fully executed Consent Chapter 18.116 (11/2018) ATTACHMENT A to Inspect Premises form: a. Documentation demonstrating compliance with the: i. Land use decision and permits. ii. Fire, health, safety, waste water, and building codes and laws. iii. State of Oregon licensing requirements. b. Failure to timely submit the annual report, fee, and Consent to Inspect Premises form or acknowledgement by the real property owner and licensee that the otherwise allowed use is not in compliance with Deschutes County Code; authorizes permit revocation under DCC Title 22, and may be relied upon by the State of Oregon to deny new or license renewal(s) for the subject use. c. Other information as may be reasonably required by the Planning Director to ensure the public health, safety, and welfare. d. Marijuana Control Plan to be established and maintained by the Community Development Department. e. Conditions of Approval Agreement to be established and maintained by the Community Development Department. • public reed subject to ORS 192.502(17). 11. Prohibited Uscs. a. In the EFU zone, the following uses are prohibited: i. A new dwelling used in conjunction with a marijuana crop; ii. A farm stand, as described in ORS 215.213(1)(r) or 215.283(1)(o), used in conjunction with a marijuana crop; iii. A commercial activity, as described in ORS 215.213(2)(c) or 215.283(2)(a), carried on in conjunction a marijuana crop; and iv. Agri tourism and other commercial events and activities in conjunction with a marijuana crop. b. In the MUA 10 Zone, the following uses are prohibited: with a marijuana crop. c. In the EFU, MUA 10, and Rural Industrial zones, the following uses are prohibited on the same property as marijuana production: i. Guest Lodge. ii. Guest Ranch. iii. Dude Ranch. iv. Destination Resort. v. Public Parks. vi. Private Parks. vii. Events, Mass Gatherings and Outdoor Mass Gatherings. viii. Bed and Br-akfast. ix. Room and Board Arrangements. (Ord. 2018-012 §3, 2018; Ord. 2016-019 §1, 2016) Chapter 18.116 (11/2018) ATTACH VENT A Chapter 18.124. SITE PLAN REVIEW 18.124.060. Approval Criteria. * * * 18.124.060. Approval Criteria. Approval of a site plan shall be based on the following criteria: A. The proposed development shall relate harmoniously to the natural and man-made environment and existing development, minimizing visual impacts and preserving natural features including views and topographical features. B. The landscape and existing topography shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible, considering development constraints and suitability of the landscape and topography. Preserved trees and shrubs shall be protected. C. The site plan shall be designed to provide a safe environment, while offering appropriate opportunities for privacy and transition from public to private spaces. D. When appropriate, the site plan shall provide for the special needs of disabled persons, such as ramps for wheelchairs and Braille signs. E. The location and number of points of access to the site, interior circulation patterns, separations between pedestrians and moving and parked vehicles, and the arrangement of parking areas in relation to buildings and structures shall be harmonious with proposed and neighboring buildings and structures. F. Surface drainage systems shall be designed to prevent adverse impacts on neighboring properties, streets, or surface and subsurface water quality. G. Areas, structures and facilities for storage, machinery and equipment, services (mail, refuse, utility wires, and the like), loading and parking and similar accessory areas and structures shall be designed, located and buffered or screened to minimize adverse impacts on the site and neighboring properties. H. All above -ground utility installations shall be located to minimize adverse visual impacts on the site and neighboring properties. I. Specific criteria are outlined for each zone and shall be a required part of the site plan (e.g. lot setbacks, etc.). J. All exterior lighting shall be shielded so that direct light does not project off-site. K. Transportation access to the site shall be adequate for the use. 1. Where applicable, issues including, but not limited to, sight distance, turn and acceleration/deceleration lanes, right-of-way, roadway surfacing and widening, and bicycle and pedestrian connections, shall be identified. 2. Mitigation for transportation -related impacts shall be required. 3. Mitigation shall meet applicable County standards in DCC 17.16 and DCC 17.48, applicable Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) mobility and access standards, and applicable American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards. (0 d. 201 8-012 §4, 2018; Ord. 2010-018 §2, 2010, Ord. 93-043 §§21, 22 and 22A, 1993; Ord. 91-038 §1, 1991; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991) Chapter 18.124 1 A FIAcH Chapter 22.24. LAND USE ACTION HEARINGS 22.24.030. Notice of Hearing or Administrative Action. * * * u 22.24.030. Notice of Hearing or Administrative Action. A. Individual Mailed Notice. 1. Except as otherwise provided for herein, notice of a land use application shall be mailed at least 20 days prior to the hearing for those matters set for hearing, or within 10 days after receipt of an application for those matters to be processed administratively with notice. Written notice shall be sent by mail to the following persons: a. The applicant. b. Owners of record of property as shown on the most recent property tax assessment roll of property located: 1. Within 100 feet of the property that is the subject of the notice where any part of the subject property is within an urban growth boundary; 2. Within 250 feet of the property that is the subject of the notice where the subject property is outside an urban growth boundary and not within a farm or forest zone, except where greater notice is required under DCC 22.24.030(A)(4) for structures proposed to exceed 30 feet in height; or 3. Within 750 feet of the property that is the subject of the notice where the subject property is within a farm or forest zone, except where greater notice is required under DCC 22.24.030(A)(4) for structures proposed to exceed 30 feet in height. 4. Within 1000 feet of the property that is subject of a marijuana production or processing notice where the subject property is within a faun zone. c. For a solar access or solar shade exception application, only those owners of record identified in the application as being burdened by the approval of such an application. d. The owner of a public use airport if the airport is located within 10,000 feet of the subject property. e. The tenants of a mobile home park when the application is for the rezoning of any part or all of a mobile home park. f. The Planning Commission. g. Any neighborhood or community organization formally recognized by the board under criteria established by the Board whose boundaries include the site. h. At the discretion of the applicant, the County also shall provide notice to the Department of Land Conservation and Development. 2. Notwithstanding DCC 22.24.030(A)(1) (b)(1), all owners of property within 250 feet of property that is the subject of a plan amendment application or zone change application shall receive notice. 3. The failure of a property owner to receive mailed notice shall not invalidate any land use approval if the Planning Division can show by affidavit that such notice was given. 4. For structures proposed to exceed 30 feet in height that are located outside of an urban growth boundary, the area for describing persons entitled to notice under DCC 22.24.030(A)(1)(b) shall expand outward by a distance equal to the distance of the initial notice area boundary for every 30 foot height increment or portion thereof. B. Posted Notice. Chapter 22.24 1 ENT A AlTA:_MEN ...A 1. Notice of a land use action application for which prior notice procedures are chosen shall be posted on the subject property for at least 10 continuous days prior to any date set for receipt of comments. Such notice shall, where practicable, be visible from any adjacent public way. 2. Posted notice of an application for a utility facility line approval shall be by posting the proposed route at intervals of not less than one-half mile. The notice shall be posted as close as practicable to, and be visible from, any public way in the vicinity of the proposed route. 3. Notice of a solar access application shall be posted as near as practicable to each lot identified in the application. C. Published Notice. In addition to notice by mail and posting, notice of an initial hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the County at least 20 days prior to the hearing. D. Media Notice. Copies of the notice of hearing shall be transmitted to other newspapers published in Deschutes County. (Ord. 2018-012 _§5,2018 Ord. 99-031 §6, 1999; Ord. 96-071 §1D, 1996; Ord. 95-071 §1, 1995; Ord. 95-045 §12, 1995; Ord. 91-013 §7-8, 1991; Ord. 90-007 §1, 1990) 22.24.040. Contents of Notice. Chapter 22.24 2 ATTACH VI ENT A Chapter 22.32. APPEALS 22.32.015. Filing Appeals. * * * 22.32.015. Filing appeals. A. To file an appeal, an appellant must file a completed notice of appeal on a form prescribed by the Planning Division and an appeal fee. B. Unless a request for reconsideration has been filed, the notice of appeal and appeal fee must be received at the offices of the Deschutes County Community Development Department no later than 5:00 PM on the twelfth day following mailing of the decision. If a decision has been modified on reconsideration, an appeal must be filed no later than 5:00 PM on the twelfth day following mailing of the decision as modified. Notices of Appeals may not be received by facsimile machine. C. Unless a request for reconsideration has been filed for a marijuana production or processing administrative decision, the notice of appeal and appeal fee must be received at the offices of the Deschutes County Community Development Department no later than 5:00 PM on the fifteenth day following mailing of the decision. CD.If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body and the Board declines review, a portion of the appeal fee may be refunded. The amount of any refund will depend upon the actual costs incurred by the County in reviewing the appeal. When the Board declines review and the decision is subsequently appealed to LUBA, the appeal fee may be applied toward the cost of preparing a transcript of the lower Hearings Body's decision. DE. The appeal fee shall be paid by method that is acceptable to Deschutes County. (Ord. 2018-012 02018;Ord. 2015-017 §3, 2015; Ord. 99-031 §15, 1999; Ord. 98-019 §2, 1998; Ord. 96- 071 §1G, 1996; Ord. 95-045 §32, 1995; Ord. 94-042 §2, 1994; Ord. 91-013 §11, 1991; Ord 90-007 §1, 1990) Chapter 22.32 1 Public Comments Received After Hearing Packet Submittal (June 27 -July 3) Tanya Saltzman From: Shirley Morgan <shirley.morgan@aecinc.com> Sent: Friday, lune 28, 2019 11:24 AM To: Tanya Saltzman Cc: Tony DeBone; Phil Henderson; Patti Adair; Nick Lelack Subject: Deschutes County Ordinance No. 2019-012 PUBLIC TESTIMONY Importance: High CITIZENS Putdtc Satens Quality tit Lit tofffhoO of Sof e r Fr Focus -Marijuana i� PUBLIC TESTIMONY http://deschutescountyor.igm2.com/Citizens/Detail Meetinq.aspx?ID=2333 Dear Deschutes County Chair Henderson and Commissioners Adair, and Debone, I submit this in support of a Deschutes County recommendation to OPT OUT of any additional marijuana production sites. The marijuana industry in all states where it has been legalized through highly funded out-of-state ballot initiatives and misrepresented arm twisting facts with legislators, have already shown their inability to abide by State regulation programs. Once in, it becomes the camel's nose under the tent they just want more until they meet their goal, which is not to have to abide by any marijuana regulations. Marijuana is treated differently because it is a federally illegal drug and is not a normal farm crop and it certainly doesn't smell like a normal crop, therefore it is not allotted the same protections as real farm crops. Oregon's marijuana law has provided provisions for local jurisdictions to provide ordinances that control reasonable time, manner and place regulations. The pro marijuana advocates though active in the community input process only seek to challenge any regulations. The truth is the marijuana industry doesn't want to have any regulations, nor do they find any regulations reasonable. What is unreasonable, is that all existing farmers in the State of Oregon are required to abide by all County, State, and Federal laws. Does the marijuana industry think that they are exempt from the same? Oregon in all counties have experienced impacts far beyond the normal farmer, such as the attempts to turn farm land into industrialized marijuana production sites such as: • Industrialized traffic. • Industrialized power usage. • Industrialized water usage. • Industrialized equipment that is required to operate a grow. • Industrialized harvesting, 365 days a year 24/7 days a week, not your normal seasonal farming harvest. The industrialized marijuana industry touts that their operations will bring jobs to the community, but fail to tell the community what the real unfriendly impacts are such as: SECURITY: The installation of security gates, fences, cameras, security guards, and tree barriers which they claim will deter criminal activity, yet they claim "there is no data suggesting that criminal activity goes up around marijuana grow sites and that it will not be any different than any other type of agricultural facility." We can't think of any other type of agricultural site that requires security gates, fencing, cameras and security guards if crime doesn't go up. All we have to do is a search of States that have legalized marijuana to see that plenty of crime is brought into our communities because of these marijuana grow sites. https://katu.com/news/loca I/thieves-smash-walls-with-sledgehammers-steal-pot-plants-from-I icensed-grow-facility http://www. usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/06/27/3-die-shooting-oregon-legal-pot-grow-suspect- captured/86451942/ http://koin.com/2017/11/03/oregon-genetics-marii uana-warehouse-burglarized/ http://nypost.com/2017/07/18/pot-grower-details-horrific-attack-on-state-licensed-farm/ http://registerguard.com/rg/opinion/36109717-78/I ivi ng -near -marijuana -grow -can -be -unhealthy -experience. html.csp https://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2016/jan/25/neighbors-i ncensed-over-stinky-pot-farms-proposed-ban-would-include- existi ng -b usi nesses/ https://kobi5.com/news/240-pounds-of-canna bis -stolen -from -marijuana -farm -51625/ ODOR & NOISE: Odor is the main complaint of marijuana grow sites, whether they are using odor mitigation carbon filters or not. What they don't tell you is that the large HVAC fans that are used sound like small airplane engines and hum throughout the community all day and night causing many problems for neighbors. https://www.wesh.com/article/residents-concerned-over-noise-caused-by-marijuana-nursery/27036113 TRAFFIC: Industrialized traffic has become the new norm, with patterns of commercial traffic such as: semi's, commercial marijuana product and equipment delivery trucks, large UPS and Fed Express, dirt delivery vehicles (as much of the dirt used to grow marijuana is often imported from out of Country such as Sri Lanka), compost trucks, material plant waste containers, waste water management containers, heavy equipment for moving pallets and other items, huge cargo containers for storage and large number of employee vehicles 24/7, 365 days a year. 2 • WATER: large commercial marijuana grow sites are operating 24/7, 365 days a year, therefore producing marijuana annually around the clock rather than seasonally like other farming practices, therefore using much more water than the normal farmer. • LIGHTING & POWER: Power bills for commercialized marijuana grows can cost as much as $100,000 per month, using up local power grids, using way more power than any other type of farming products. https://www.oregoniive.com/marijuana/2015/31/marijuana grows cause power bl.html KIDS: They note that "the impact on kids won't be any different than any other type of agricultural facility," but neglect to tell you that kids will certainly know the difference with the fencing, cameras, security guards, odor, noise, and traffic. Kids will be the first to know that marijuana will be grown in the building. To learn what is going on with kids and marijuana in Oregon high schools, watch the below documentary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BApEKGUpcXs Weed Documentary High School 2016 • PROPERTY VALUES: They note, "It's unlikely that it will impact your property values and that "there is little reliable data on the impact of cultivation facilities on property values." All you have to do is to ask yourself, friends and neighbors, would you buy a property next to a large commercial marijuana grow? Of course it impacts local property values. The marijuana industry has always been a rouge industry that pulls the wool over the eyes of voters and legislators, hoping to hoodwink them into thinking that they can become a serious regulated market and keep drugs out of the hands of kids and get rid of the black market. We already know that this isn't true in Oregon. There are no privileges that are granted to the marijuana industry under the Oregon Right to Farm Act, as marijuana is federally illegal. What is granted to the marijuana industry are the rights of local jurisdictions to establish time, manner, and place regulations and the right to OPT OUT. We support Deschutes County's right to OPT OUT, over reasonable regulations. Please include this letter as public testimony for the public hearing schedule for July 3, 2019. Respectfully submitted, Shirley Morgan NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, print, copy, use or disseminate it. Please immediately notify us by return e-mail and delete it. Ifthis e-mail contains a forwarded e-mail or is a reply to a prior e-mail, the contents may not have been produced by the Render and therefore we are not responsihle for its content. 3 Tanya Saltzman From: paulahawes@sbcglobal.net Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2019 2:17 PM To: Phil Henderson; Patti Adair; Tony DeBone Cc: Tanya Saltzman; Nick Lelack Subject: Opt -Out of New Marijuana Production in Deschutes County Attachments: Time to Opt-Out.pdf Dear County Chair Henderson and Commissioners, Adair and DeBone, I would like to submit this written testimony as my support of the decision for Deschutes County to OPT OUT of any new marijuana production operations. Measure 91: Measure 91 passed with a very small margin in Deschutes County. Furthermore, the majority of rural voters rejected Measure 91, yet they have been the ones who have been forced to endure the impact of marijuana operations in their communities. HB3400: Measure 91 only asked voters whether they wanted to allow marijuana use, nowhere was it stated on the ballot that marijuana would be grown in agricultural areas. HB3400, decided by handful of pro -marijuana legislators, without any voter input, designated cannabis as an agricultural crop, thus granting marijuana Oregon's Right -to -Farm protection on lots that have been zoned for Exclusive Farm Use (EFU). Deschutes County's EFU's Are Surrounded by Rural Residences: Over time Deschutes County has permitted much of its farmlands to be chopped up and rezoned. This afforded landowners to profit from the sale of a portion of their land and afforded the County the ability to impose higher tax rates on the newly created lots. In areas like Tumalo the dividing up of large EFU lots has resulted in 20, 30, 40 and even 60 acre lots now being adjacent to small 2, 5 and 10 acre lots that have been rezoned as Multiple Use, or Rural Residential. The county permitted these new lots to have residential homes built on them. Often due to the limitations of the size of the lots it's not uncommon to find that a home is located a mere 100 feet from a property line. In the past when most of Deschutes County's farmlands were being farmed for hay the activities associated with farming, like dust from harvesting a couple of times a year, were tolerated as acceptable "periodic and reasonable" farming practices. In contrast, marijuana production is carried out 365 days a year, it is an industrial, commercial, enterprise that does not belong a mere few hundred feet from rural residence. Right -To -Farm, or the Right -To -Harm? Right -to -Farm laws are increasingly becoming a "Right to Harm." They are being used as a "get of jail free card," for any "new" get -rich quick industry, no matter what costs their operation has on the quality of life and property values of existing neighboring property owners. Someone who acquires a rural property has the right to expect said property will continue to afford them, within reason, the same quality of life that was evident when the property was purchased. RTF laws that were originally created to protect farmers from those who "came to the nuisance," are now frequently being used to guarantee protection for all/any future farming practices, no matter how burdensome and unreasonable to others. When do Right -to -Farm Laws Go Too Far? * Commercial marijuana cultivation involves multiple plastic hoop houses, industrial fans that run 24/7, grow lights that spoil our night skies and creates a pervasive foul skunk odor that travels large distances, preventing neighboring 1 residents from being able to enjoy the use of their own properties, or sleep with their windows open. Rural land that was once a part of a peaceful neighborhood has been turned into a commercial enterprise, with multiple staff, dogs, ATV's and traffic utilizing previously quiet rural roads. These operations are more industrial in nature than they are agricultural and why Colorado, unlike Oregon, insisted that marijuana be grown in industrial warehouses away from all rural and urban residences. California also granted marijuana a crop status, resulting in residents complaining about offensive odors permeating their neighborhoods. This has subsequently resulted in several counties like Sonoma putting a ban on hemp production due the lack of odor control. Op -In Decision: Despite the considerable push back Deschutes County received from rural homeowners during public hearings, the County Commissioners decided to Opt -In on the grounds they could put reasonable "time place and manner" restrictions on marijuana production, including that of EFU zoned property. Additionally, a Marijuana Advisory Committee (MAC) was formed to create regulations. The MAC was primarily made up of those who were either currently working in the marijuana industry or hoping to do so in the future, thus the regulations that were generated were done so with the approval of those in the marijuana industry. However, six months after Deschutes County put rules in place these same individuals were attempting to get Salem Representatives to overrule them. Non -Compliance: Predictably, since the Opt -In many in the marijuana industry have failed to comply with even the State's regulations. The Oregon Liquor Control Commission's (OLCC) 2018 "Operation Good Harvest," found Deschutes County's marijuana producers to have only a 55% compliance rate, worse than the State average. Massive Overproduction: According to Time Magazine, Oregon's pot supply is running twice as high as demand, meaning that the surplus from last year's harvest alone could amount to roughly 2,3 million pounds of marijuana, by the OLCC's figures. That's the equivalent of over 1 billion joints. Oregon has one of the highest imbalances among the 10 states that have legalized recreational marijuana. http/time.com/5598922/oregon-weed-pot-supplyf The fact is we don't need more marijuana production in Oregon. In conclusion it's worth noting that two of the County Commissioners who made the decision to Opt -In were thrown out by voters in subsequent elections. What does that tell you? Rural voters have spoken, and they don't want marijuana production in their neighborhoods. Opt -Out of any new marijuana production now. Thank you. Paula Hawes Rural Resident *Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review: "Governments and Unconstitutional Takings: When do Right -to -Farm Laws Go Too Far?" Statutes protecting existing activities from nuisance lawsuits by future neighbors incorporate an equitable coming to the nuisance doctrine. However, a few legislatures have adopted right -to -farm law provisions that go further and grant a preference whereby future incompatible activities are protected against nuisance lawsuits. Under a provision protecting future nuisances, the interference with a neighbor's property rights may be so great that it operates to affect a regulatory taking. Right -to -farm laws that extend their protection to minor adjustments of activities should withstand scrutiny. However, laws that foist significant burdens on neighboring property owners by providing a defense for new nuisance activities may go too far. Statutes that allow major expansion or extensive changes might produce an unconstitutional taking. 2 Bend Park f' Recreation DISTRICT July 1, 2019 Tanya Saltzman Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97703 SUBJECT: Reconsideration of Deschutes County Marijuana Text Amendments Dear Ms. Saltzman, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Deschutes County's reconsideration of text amendments to the Deschutes County Code that refine the regulation and enforcement of marijuana production on rural lands. As the provider of public parks in the community, the District is concerned about the potential impacts marijuana production and retail facilities could have on the public's use, enjoyment and safety in parks. We appreciate that Ordinance No. 2018-012 requires property line separations between marijuana properties and state, local, and municipal parks, including land owned by a parks district. Because the District owns land in the County, we strongly encourage you to keep text that addresses property line separations from marijuana properties and parks. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please don't hesitate to contact me at 541-706-6130, or quinn@bendparksandrec.org. Sincerely, Quinn Keever, Park Planner Bend Park and Recreation District District Office I Don Horton, Executive Director 795 SW Cokunbra Sr., fiend, ( )ftr>,011 97702 v: wvvbendpal ksandre core 1 (.511) ;189-_27.5 Subject: Re In or Out 2015 vs. 2019 Honorable Chairman Henderson and Commissioners Adair and DeBone, please consider the following: 2015: The Board was facing a decision having little to none factual information as to the consequences of allowing marijuana production in established family, normal -farming neighborhoods. Emphasizing optimistic revenue projection and minimizing the concerns of the adverse effects on safety, health, and existing family normal -farming operations, the Board oped in. 2019: Today, the Board will reconsider that 2015 decision. This time, the Board does not need to rely on "projections," because now - in the record are empirical, anecdotal evidence, and actual statistics collected by law enforcement agencies throughout the State - each Commissioners has the following factual information to guide his/her decision: • It is now acknowledged by law enforcement agencies throughout the State that marijuana production has a history of frequently bringing increased crime and public safety issues, including threats of bodily harm, to a here -before safe normal -farming neighborhood. • As testified to in the public hearings, the quality of life in Deschutes County's established family, normal -farming neighborhoods have been adversely effected by marijuana production. • Revenue -wise, the net effect of oping-in has had an adverse financial impact on the County's resources including non-financial resources. • Deschutes County's renowned reputation as a preferred safe, family-oriented vacation choice is in jeopardy. • Today, with four -years of insight and information, the Board can now better understand why the State Legislature by excluding marijuana production from the protection of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.3905, "Right to Farm," publicly acknowledged that marijuana production is not equivalent to normal farming operations. • Hence, your factual, informed vote to Op -out is the only way to: • Protect the safety, health, and quality of life of Deschutes County's established family, normal -farming neighborhoods; • Prevent further strain on the County's financial and nom -financial resources; and • Protect Deschutes County's renowned reputation as a preferred safe, family-oriented vacation choice. A quote: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?" John Maynard Keynes, Noble Prize Laureate Respectfully submitted, Robert P. and Nancy J. King, Trustee, owner 69220 Goodrich Road Sisters, Or 97759 Mailing address: 29422 Spotted Bull Way San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Tanya Saltzman From: Monica Rendon <muttsaboutyou2@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2019 1:13 PM To: Tanya Saltzman Cc: Tony DeBone; Patti Adair; Phil Henderson; Nick Lelack Subject: Deschutes County Ordinance No. 2019-012 PUBLIC TESTIMONY Commissioners of Deschutes County. I respectfully wish to voice my opinion to OPT OUT of any additional marijuana sites. I am unable to attend the public hearing on Wednesday, July 3rd, but wish my voice to be heard. Thank you! Monica Rendon Rural Bend Resident I want to live my life like my dog does - Always in the moment and always honest and true. s* .VD Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad i Tanya Saltzman From: Vern And Monica <vrendon3@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2019 1:10 PM To: Tanya Saltzman Cc: Tony DeBone; Phil Henderson; Patti Adair; Nick Lelack Subject: Deschutes County Ordinance No. 2019-012 PUBLIC TESTIMONY Commissioners of Deschutes County. I respectfully wish to voice my opinion to OPT OUT of any additional marijuana sites. I am unable to attend the public hearing on Wednesday, July 3rd, but wish my voice to be heard. Thank you! Vern Rendon Rural Bend Resident I want to live my life like my dog does - Always in the moment and always honest and true. ' VD 1 Tanya Saltzman From: gailhayesdavis@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2019 4:09 PM To: Tanya Saltzman Subject: Public Hearing on Ordinance #2018-012 July 3, 2019 Dear Chair Henderson, Commissioner DeBone, and Commissioner Adair, Thank you for considering my comments on Ordinance Number 2019-012, more specifically the reconsideration of text amendments to the Deschutes County Code refining the regulation and enforcement of marijuana production on rural lands, which were originally adopted as Ordinance No. 2018-012. There are strict state and county controls in place from seed to selling point the problem lies in the hundreds of active UNREGULATED medical marijuana growers in Deschutes County. They are unregulated and therefore free to sell their marijuana to anyone in the black market including youth. Currently, Deschutes County has 636 active medical grows in the county. The number of plants and patients per active grow are publicly unknown but we can assume every one of the 636 active medical grows contains more than 12 plants. Twelve is the maximum number of plants you can grow without reporting your medical grow to state authorities. The maximum amount of plants per medical grow is 48 outside city limits unless you are grandfathered in at 96 plants. Let's assume each medical grow contains an average of 20 plants in Deschutes County and each plant yields 2.64 pounds a year (Roig, Suzanne. "Oregon faces black-market marijuana problem." The Bulletin. Web. 14 October, 2018). The total yield based on the assumptions of 20 plants per medical grow at 2.64 pounds a year is 52.8 pounds of cannabis produced in in Deschutes County in 2018. Not knowing the hard data behind the individual demand in Deschutes County, we should assume the higher echelon of the individual patient consumption in milligrams per day is 80 milligrams. If a patient consumes on average 80 milligrams of THC per day; the grams needed in flower form per day would be 2.79 grams of cannabis (assuming a strength in cannabis greater than 20% THC, Staff. "Guidelines For Dosing WIth Medical Cannabis - Routes of Administration." 420Evaluations. Web. 29 September, 2016). Let's keep the math simple and assume 3 grams of flower a day or 2.4 pounds per year is consumed per patient in Deschutes County. There are 2,379 patients registered in Deschutes County as of April 2018 (Oregon Health Authority. The Oregon Medical Marijuana Program Statistical Snapshop April 2018.) Based on this data, the medical patient consumption for the county is 2,379 patients x 2.4 pounds per year or 5,709 pounds per year. Therefore, the excess from the medical growers is over 30,000 pounds in Deschutes County. This overage definitely goes on sale through the black market!! Making the rules more stringent on the regulated cannabis growers in Deschutes County will only increase the number of black market sellers! 1 I urge you to carefully consider all comments before deciding to enact an ordinance that will increase the costs of the industry and potentially result in the very result that the Commissioners wish to prevent — proliferation of the black market. Sincerely, Dr. Gail Hayes Davis 65599 Tweed Road Bend, Oregon 97704 2 Tanya Saltzman From: Robert Hunt <huntrv2@outlook.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2019 6:56 PM To: Tanya Saltzman Subject: Marijuana Regulation Update & and Luba Deschutes County Commissioners et al Cannot Attend Wednesday Hearing so hear is my testimony: > Deny all grow permits where the property owners cannot demonstrate adequate water rights and or a legal on site water supply approved by the state water board! Fact: Oregon's water supply is being used / drained at a non -sustainable rate! Marijuana plants demand more water to grow than any food source! The state legislature is mesmerized with related tax $$$ in their eyes. I want them to get out of Marijuana promotion business! If producers grow and process more product than the market can absorb. Tough sh..! Sherif Nelson simple does not have enough resources to keep us safe from crime / vehicle crashes related to the drug industry at large and motorists choosing to drive impaired wether by alcohol, marijuana, prescription or illegal drugs. DA John Hummel has been denied the resources to prosecute growing crime in Deschutes County. KTVZ gave some obscure budget committee the credit for that dumb decision. Vicki and I living in Deschutes County now consider it a threatening place to live. Please tell the Marijuana industry enough is enough. Don't do anything to advance this over produced industry. Remember: It's all about water! Robert Lee Hunt 17596 Cascade Estates Drive Bend, OR 97703 PO Box 2114, Sisters 97759 Tel: 971-230-8718 Sent from my iPad 1 From: Terri Silliman To: Tanya Saltzman Subject: Marijuana meeting - July 3 Date: Wednesday, July 03, 2019 8:01:45 AM Dear Tanya, I am writing to voice my support to opt out of any future marijuana operations in Deschutes county. I am concerned that the lack of regulations surrounding the growth of an agribusiness will have foreseen and unforeseen consequences. As a land owner in Tumalo, i use our well water for daily residential needs. A year ago we needed our well pump replaced and Cascade Irrigation, who did the job for us, noted that our well water levels were significantly lower. We have 3 separate households , comprising 10 acres, that utilize this well for our household needs. My major concern is the use of this ground water, being unregulated, by the grow houses that will be built for marijuana production. As you know, each marijuana plant needs a great deal of water (and electricity), and the unregulated draw from the ground water scares me. I really hope that you, and the other commissioners, will opt out on this land use approval and instead take the time to seek out the changes that may cause unfair burdens on the families that currently live in this rural area. I am very grateful for what has been done so far by your commission to keep the current operations under strict guidelines - setbacks, inspections, light and noise regulations. Thank you for that. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Teresa Silliman 18945 Pinehurst Rd. Tumalo. Tanya Saltzman From: Stephanie Marshall <stephanie@bennulaw.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2019 9:34 AM To: Tanya Saltzman Subject: Public Comments on Proposed Deschutes County Ordinance No. 2019-012 Attachments: 0078_190703091855_001.pdf; 02.12.19 LUBA Petition for Review Signed.pdf Good morning Tanya, Attached please find written public comments for Deschutes County Ordinance No. 2019-012. We have attached an exhibit to the public comments, as well. Because the exhibit is over 20 pages, I will also address that fact with the Board directly at the hearing today. It is our understanding that Commissioners have expressed concern that all legal arguments were not brought to the attention of the Board when Ordinance 2018-012 was adopted last year. For this reason, we are attaching a copy of the LUBA Petition challenging that Ordinance so that the Board will have a complete record of all concerns related to its potential decision to re -adopt Ordinance 2018-012 as Ordinance 2019-012. We expect that the Board will not object to having a full and complete record before it for its decision-making. Please include the attachments in the record. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Stephanie Marshall �i BENNU LAW Stephanie Marshall I Senior Attorney,lt. f)1a-311ic@b ,t„ui,m.COlri Bennu Law, LLC (541) 306-6144 354 Greenwood Ave., Suite 213 Bend, OR 97701 -it:yV,1>Cl,l�.i?ay .cotta This e-mail message may contain confidential or legally privileged information and is intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or the laking of any action in reliance on the information herein is prohibited. E-mails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be intercepted, amended, or contain vintses. Anyone who communicates with us by e-mail is deemed to have accepted these asks. Company Name is not responsible for en -ors or omissions in this message and denies any responsibility for any damage arising from the use of e-mail. Any opinion and other statement contained in this message and any attachment are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. 1 BENNU LAW July 3, 2019 Submitted via email to tanya.saltzman@deschutes.org re: Written Public Comments on Proposed Deschutes County Ordinance No. 2019-012 Dear Chair Henderson, Commissioner DeBone and Commissioner Adair: This law firm is the successor entity to Clifton Cannabis Law LLC, which represented twelve (12) petitioners (the "Petitioners") in an appeal of Ordinance No. 2018-012 to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) in 2018. This letter is submitted during the open record period for proposed Deschutes County Ordinance No. 2019-012. We previously submitted written comments, dated June 13, 2019, on the Deschutes County Development Department (CDD) Annual Report and Draft 2019-2020 Work Plan and asked that those comments also be included in the public record for the proposed Ordinance No. 2019-012. We understand that you intend to reconsider and re -adopt the marijuana text amendments that were adopted (and appealed and subsequently withdrawn) last fall. In this legislative process, the County has the opportunity to address many issues raised by the LUBA Petitioners to develop regulations that are actually reasonable and supported by the facts. A. Summary of Legal and Factual Deficiencies in Ordinance 2018-012 The Marijuana Regulatory Assessment prepared by CDD staff at the Board's request, including a Marijuana Land Use Existing Conditions Report, dated October 23, 2017, shows no issues were identified with respect to permitted operations. There is no basis for increasing regulation of marijuana. The Commissioners should listen to all of their constituents, particularly those most impacted by the regulations, which includes those in the marijuana industry. Alleged impact of those operations on the public is not supported by evidence but on fears and a lack of understanding concerning legally produced and processed marijuana. Elevating presumptions about character, crime and even odor over the documented track record of legal, complaint operations is error. The applicants 354 Greenwood Ave., Ste. 213 Bend, OR 97701 stephanie@bennulaw.com 1 that come before the County for approval of proposed marijuana activities have invested substantial time and resources in ensuring that they operate within the bounds of the law. Not only are these persons and businesses subject to stringent license review by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC), but they must strictly operate in accordance with Oregon law and OLCC regulations, or risk losing their license and all associated investments therewith. Contrary to the assumptions that there is "too much marijuana" in the state and that approval of additional applications will fuel the black market, just the opposite is true. Licensees are required to track all product from seed to sale, through the entire regulated process. Those that cannot account for any of the produced product also face penalties and potential law enforcement action,. The regulations adopted by the County in 2018, if re-enacted would result is the erosion of rights under the Farm Bill and the State and Federal Constitutions. Why is marijuana treated differently than hemp with respect to odor? Why is a presumption of guilt applied to applicants and operators to justify unannounced searches? Why are no other businesses and no other farms subject to such extreme exercises of claimed authority? Marijuana is a farm crop entitled to protection under the Farm Act and Goal 3. Small farms are also entitled to protection by the County Comprehensive Plan. The County must not lose sight of these existing protections in the .rush to regulate out of existence what is viewed as politically unpopular. The County elected to opt -in, and not prohibit marijuana. It cannot have it both ways. The County regulations would impose restrictions on one type of crop to which no other farm crop in the state is subject. This impermissibly takes away the decision from the farmer as to the type of crop they want to grow on EFU property and is a back -door attempt by the County to prohibit marijuana when it has already decided to opt -in and allow it. ORS 475B.526 declares marijuana as a crop for purposes of "farm use," (ORS 215.201), production of marijuana is included within the definitions of "farm" and "farming practice" (for purposes of ORS 30.930), and marijuana is the product of an agricultural activity (for purposes of ORS 568.909) and the product of farm use (for purposes of ORS 308A.062). Marijuana is entitled to the same protections as other crops under Oregon's Farm Act and is shielded from nuisance and trespass lawsuits under ORS 30.935. The County has no authority to take away protections afforded any farm crop, let alone, to single out one farm crop for differential treatment. The restrictions on odor and noise should not be adopted because (1) hemp cannot be subject to the same odor restrictions, but it has the same odor, and (2) no other farmer that produces other crops in greenhouses are subject to the same noise restrictions. The County has proven that it will discount professional engineering reports prepared by marijuana farmers concerning noise and odor and deny applications on the basis of an assumption marijuana applicants will not comply with noise and odor restrictions. 354 Greenwood Ave., Ste. 213 Bend, OR 97701 stephanie@bennulaw.corn Protection of residences in the EFU from farming activities runs counter to the purpose of the Right to Farm act, and is inconsistent with the County's own requirement of acknowledgment by property owners not to bring any nuisance lawsuit for farming practices where the County approves non-farm dwellings in the EFU. The County has it backwards here, requiring marijuana farmers to ensure protection of non-farm residences in the farm zone. With respect to legal authority, the County is indeed limited with respect to the scope of marijuana regulations it can adopt. First, they must be "reasonable." Second, ORS 475B.486 describes the type of police power authority granted, which extends to hours of operations, access and setbacks. This authority is importantly constrained by ORS 475B.454, Preemption. The provisions of the statutory scheme are designed to operate uniformly throughout the state and are paramount and superior to and fully replace and supersede any municipal charter amendment or local ordinance inconsistent with the provisions of the statutory scheme. Amendments and local ordinances that are inconsistent with the statutory scheme are repealed. The County has already been warned by the Legislature regarding its local regulations. Defending regulations that the County should know to be unreasonable and inconsistent with state law is a waste of public resources. B. Specific Challenges to be Raised if the County Reenacts the Same Regulations and Restrictions in Ordinance 2018-012 If the County essentially readopts the Ordinance, challenges to LUBA will be made on these, and other bases. First, the County would again exceed its jurisdiction and in doing so, would misconstrue controlling laws. The County lacks authority to remove marijuana's state protections as a legal farm crop (per ORS 475B.526) under Oregon's Right to Farm Act ("Farm Act"). A new ordinance that reenacts the challenged Ordinance 2018-012 will violate that Act by granting a nuisance and trespass right against marijuana producers. The County violated Goal 3 and its Plan by effectively capping an undisputed viable agricultural use in the EFU. Second, the County lacks authority to adopt facially unreasonable restrictions on marijuana production. A local government may only regulate EFU land use as allowed by state law and cannot impose barriers to farm uses outright permitted in the EFU. The carve -out for "reasonable conditions" on the manner of marijuana production (ORS 475B.486 and ORS 475B.928) must be read congruously with these protections because otherwise, marijuana loses its express protections as a farm crop. Each restriction in Ordinance 2018-012 is unreasonable because it demands farm operations with zero impact (in terms of light, noise, odor, etc.). The Ordinance took the strictest marijuana regulations in Oregon and purposefully made them harsher to appease certain constituents. The County sought to sacrifice a farm crop to appease nonfarm uses in EFU lands. Its assertions of compliance with these laws is disproved by the record and the practical effects of its Ordinance. 354 Greenwood Ave., Ste. 213 Bend, OR 97701 stephanie@bennulaw.com 3 Third, the Ordinance was not factually supported as required by Goal 2. The record reflects substantive evidence against the Ordinance restrictions, but only speculation, unsubstantiated complaints, and the Commissioners' manifest prejudice to support them. The County should not again ignore the facts to appease grumblings of certain constituents. Fourth, the Ordinance also violated the U.S. and Oregon Constitution. Marijuana growers face unreasonable regulations not suffered by other County farmers or other marijuana growers outside the County. This is not rationally related to a legitimate government endeavor because the County's true aim in adopting the Ordinance was to usurp state legislative and administrative authorities to regulate marijuana production out of existence. The County's pretext should fail. The Ordinance's restrictions also failed rational basis analysis under 14th Amendment substantive due process jurisprudence. Forcing marijuana producers and processors to waive constitutional rights against unlawful searches and seizures is demonstrably unnecessary and pretextual, designed to harass, not enforce. Lastly, the Ordinance unconstitutionally granted a privilege by giving certain EFU owners a right to nuisance and trespass relief against marijuana growers that other citizens cannot exert against the same type of farming byproducts. Thank you for your attention to and consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Stephanie Marshall 354 Greenwood Ave., Ste. 213 Send, OR 97701 stephanie@bennulaw.com BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: 1 0 _ Date: Agenda Item Number: Name 1 C'Lv rpt N Addressac CC.4- �f`i `-' Phone #s-�'J-i lA'X3 E-mail address %1 In Favor of Application IQa Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Application Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Yes ** SUBMIT TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS Subject: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony P._C' YCI\s , V %C`C°,� \ACs. t CA Date: Agenda Item Number: Name .'- Hca e. v\ ,\(' Address s .' 0( 3v\ p Phone #s E-mail address U\,\r\, Y\ \ cmc \ OO`!-.<_„, a W In Favor of Application Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Application Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Yes ** SUBMIT TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS No f Opting out is a win win for everyone 7/3/19 State wins - 6 + years supply - no upside, only downside, no more tax dollars, only black market County wins — able to deal with current issues, no more new problems Only 50% compliance - with the rules the pot growers wrote themselves Commissioners win — no fight LUBA for the next several years Pot growers win — less competition, less erosion of wholesale prices Law enforcement wins — black market stops growing , increase in cost for prosecutifig,offenders is halted with opt out — not enough police and DA budget Residents and families win — no more fighting grows going in next door Costs of not opting out Law enforcement cost rises Wells run dry — 20k to redrill Property values suffer 90% buyers families with young children Families suffer — Bend is surrounded by 5 / 10 / 20 acre small family farms where families have raised their children with a few cows and chickens, 4H, and organic gardens. Pot growers do not fit into that environment. Productivity and competitiveness of young people declines — already in Middle and High schools (ask any coach or principal), COCC hired drug counselor Health — Hyperemesis, Psychosis, poisoning, hospital cost, state covers uninsured Why not opt out? There is no reason. There is enough supply for all that want to use it. Opt out now and fix the current problems before making them worse. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: /laid 14 °I'det Agenda Item Number: Name ---�a --`74 -9/ 5 Address /7 5 5S-- P-cL. Date: 7/(,//P Phone #s e i% q 7 7 3,9' �-- E-mail address , ja GJ a p, tit5 t''l ,t - In Favor of Application Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Application Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Yes ** SUBMIT TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS No BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: Me I �� _ Date: Agenda Item Number: Of ' tt a rKA_ 2 0 1 9 -" b r z -- Name Gref'i o r, ?e e c se) fl Address 'l z_5 121fi C5 c Phone #s 5 - 0 7 Z---" E-mail address? In Favor of Application Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Application Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Yes No ** SUBMIT TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: `�/Met ea `44F4 -/L4_ S Dater ex-% Agenda Item Number: Name 0eir ,. Address / �. 1� % . GP f) 97203 Phone #s 5*( 3 ' -cam 7 z. 04 Ga Ccfc f( Co si E-mail address In Favor of Application Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Application Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Yes No ** SUBMIT TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS Deschutes County Ordinance No. 2019-012 PUBLIC TESTIMONY Dear County Chair Henderson and Commissioners Adair and DeBone, My wife and I live Tess than a quarter mile from a legal marijuana grow. We have winds and vegetation that shield us from lights, noise and smell under the current rules put in place a year ago. We think that the county decisions made then have adequately solved many of the nuisance issues although they should have been more restrictive with increased setbacks, stricter noise and light regulations and more inspections,. The present restrictions were arrived at through compromise. We are dismayed that the marijuana group now wants to strike down what was decided by our commissioners, adjust the rules more to their liking and go back to ignoring their neighbors' wishes. Obviously compromise doesn't mean anything to them. This is a marijuana growers' move that gives insight into their agenda. It is a "gimme more" attitude that is backed up by numerous misdeeds like the cheating that has been a burden on our law enforcement that have had to pursue their infractions at many grow sites. The growers in Oregon have produced enough weed to supply the state for 6 years. Why would anyone want to have more grown except to have it smuggled to other states? Our rural communities never wanted marijuana voted in to begin with. Why would they now want more growers? None of this gives the rural residents here anything. We gave the growers a chance to prove their integrity and good intentions. Although not all are bad actors, law enforcement finds many involved in smuggling and other illegal activities. There is no reason to make a demanding special interest group even larger than it is. If the commission doesn't opt out of giving more permits, the next 50% of new growers will also be cheaters and the county will be responsible for catching them as well. Why would any County Sheriffs want that extra workload? I think the county should opt out of approving any more grow sites in the future and stay with the successful rules enacted last year. Thank you for hearing my thoughts. Respectfully, Robert L. Pederson, Deschutes County resident BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: 01 (k i 0'1A c) Q _Date: -+ Agenda Item Number: \AA. OL -W\ Name Address CoD\ Phone #s 3bo 6.70 of. w .4. 3 (X W J Y \ 0 -E., Vit c( C + Co E-mail address In Favor of Application Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Application k 0 )0 )croW 1 Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? I' Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. A-4 747(krS ** SUBMIT TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS 1"-‘ .-�.. July 1, 2019 Deschutes County Commissioners: We are in opposition of continuing to allow marijuana grows in Deschutes County and would respectfully request the County Commissioners to vote to opt out of future marijuana grows instead of reconsidering Ordinance 2018-012 to establish Ordinance 2019-012. Karen Morris 59659 Saskatoon Ln Bend OR 97702 Robert Wills 59659 Saskatoon Ln Bend OR 97702 JULY 1 2019 -7M9 July 2, 2019 Deschutes County Commissioners: We are in opposition of continuing to allow marijuana grows in Deschutes County and would respectfully request the County Commissioners to vote to opt out of future marijuana grows instead of reconsidering Ordinance 2018-012 to establish Ordinance 2019-012. John Cooley 59676 Kimberly Ct Bend OR 97702 ,4 Sall oya 59: • Kimberly Ct Bend OR 97702 June 29th, 2019 To: Deschutes County Commissioners Bend, Oregon To whom it may concern, 1 am in opposition of continuing to allow mariunana grows in Deschutes County and would respectfully request the County Commissioners to vote to Opt Out of Future Marijuana Grows instead of reconsidering 2018-01 to establish 2019-012. There is an application for marijuana production that is located on the edge of a subdivision with the only access to the land is through the subdivision. This will lead to increased traffic, putting at risk those who walk, ride bikes and horses down the street. Increased noise, light, water and energy consumption, can lead to huge implications down the road. This is just one of many applications. We live in a high desert, water is precious and if used for farm use, then water should be used for food consumption, not drug manufacturing. Underground wells and water rights will be affected as years go by, and water will become a greater commodity than it currently it, in our HIGH DESERT! Deschutes County is a destination location, and many of us who have lived here for years have seen significant changes! Please opt out of future marijuana grows, this will only serve to make our community more livable as we continue to grow and our needs of water and quiet " neighborhoods" and dark night skies attract visitors to our wonderful place we call home. IF marijuana production must be, then establish it in industrial zones instead of in neighborhoods. Thank you for your consideration in this request. Regards, lu) eanette I . Kook 22089 Sweetgrass Drive Bend, Oregon 97702 Jefrey and Alison Hamilton 22588 Calgary Drive Bend, Oregon 97702 7-1-2019 We are in opposition to allow marijuana grows in Deschutes County and would respectfully request the County Commissioners to vote to Opt Out of future Marijuana Grows instead of reconsidering 2018-012 to establish 2019-012. Jefrey D. Hamilton Date: 2.0 / I Alison K. Hamilton Date: 7-1- 141 ?e / 1c. Ca vp sri r Svc . 5.77 a z 22-7144.. 14,/,... 7,, s_ trt„,e-e61-0 /44 a 7.t.a.A---a-, 1 -ti s l'Z .)f ,r df-tA dt-e-l-vl Otirt aer Aja-14--eoe ...„2-s_7,....„9„.?„, xc c_s7 7-4, ce404-7-7 c rn / ss ,ryt vis r`v as 7 D r_,. tf0(--f-71(--A 6s s-7/00,7ccav�s,�� 141 ,44 yO / Z- �b tiS-/"��,e % d / f - a/1- C m' 55 /dw :1 uA.-e 3 j 2_6/7 I'm in opposition of continuing to allow marijuana grows in Deschutes County, and would respectfully request the County Commissioners to vote Opt Out of future marijuana grows instead of reconsidering 2018-012 to Establish 2019-012. Donald Dumas Lorna Dumas June 30, 2019 22436 Calgary Dr. Bend, Oregon 97702 Mark and Wendy Burkhardt 22209 Quebec Dr Bend, OR 97702 (541) 550-7368 autorot8©bendbroadband.com June 29, 2019 Dear County Commissioners, We are in opposition of continuing to allow marijuana grows in Deschutes County and would respectfully request the County Commissioners to vote to Opt Out offuture marijuana grows instead of reconsidering 2018-012 to establish 2019-012. Mark and Wendy Burkhardt Sharon and Colin Burkhardt 22209 Quebec Dr Bend, OR 97702 (541) 550-7368 June 29, 2019 Dear County Commissioners, We are in opposiUon of continuing to aflow marjuana grows in Deschutes County and would respectfully request the County Commissioners to vote to Opt Out offuture marjuana grows nstead of reconsidering 2018-012 to establish 3019-012. Sincerely, Sharon and Colin Burkhardt l July 2, 2019 Izze Liu Associate Planner Community Development Department PO Box 6005 Bend, OR 97708-6005 RE: MARIJUANA GROWS IN DESCHUTES COUNTY We are in opposition of continuing to allow marijuana grows in Deschutes County and would respectfully request the County Commissioners to vote to Opt Out of future Marijuana Grows instead of reconsidering 2018-012 to establish 2019-012. Donald W Detweiler 59873 Calgary Lp Bend, OR 97702 Cheri L Detweiler 59873 Calgary Lp Bend, OR 97702 S my 2 Subject: M` BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Agenda Item Number: Name, MA Address 1-2-D1-{ &'fwd 0 cQ / dOK - o ) Phone #s 4` I %(10 .— 0 Date: E-mail address In Favor of Application Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Application Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? eptes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the recor ** SUBMIT TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: °N G-trc:._A c~-tra, Agenda Item Number: Name 1 '\ 5 tkc a -r Ni\ , 6 Date: 11 c'A Address CO 1, bv-A 9 eA_,A1 °kr) ') 2 -- Phone #s 3L "y ; �1� -45"; E-mail address CA0-' - In Favor of Application Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Application mor`, Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Yes ** SUBMIT TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS No Subject: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony ex{kr)---)Q., Agenda Item Number: I two' Name Address Phone #s 5'11 53-6-9 t Date: E-mail address ( -,i ({'Z .) 3 tr A._ -P . C NrY) In Favor of Application Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Application Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Yes ✓o ** SUBMIT TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: /4444.174MAr ,-Gc cC40) ArAJT Agenda Item Number: Name M//<'E mww Date: 713 Address a205gj5- ae/A)& "J» 1L-Vb 41' 8 Phone #s 5- / 325 /ff. E-mail address ,yt tCF NA y, S i775 @ AMA 1 • COM In Favor of Application Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Application Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. ** SUBMIT TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS No s°77:.) (9) H 4) E>. 8'0 (.2 = a)) a) 0 •....c� • 0 a® `g b- 0 U 0 Amendment a) H 0 c E V o o g-cos o- (I)QW •__ 01)i Q w o i o o Q. i c E o a) (6 y O O m Q V v) 1 1 1 1 ncrease restrictions and funding MINIM N LU U W CL h W U W 0 W X a m= e c2 U ~ + o O O V N N c 5 O U U 150 farms : > 2000 acres N W_ U W 0 MINIM W_ U W h 0 U UIsm sa) •� .� v) ji W W h D SiN N U w - .> p— 0 J _c �o o 0) 4a2 -l- . a _0 0 I. 0 0 D 0_ W_ U W 0 U a L- Q Q U O U 0 0 c (p :- 1- E ° - a C A -10 oej a.o O 0 a 0 4) N •- O o E 31 1 = 3 (`• a) 0 E 0 a 0) s :42) -o O O c bs / year come out of your county 0 0 0 � o ec 3 � 1 Why not address "HOT HEMP"? Hemp Farms 0 E J H • QN 155 O 0 0 N• 0 0 0 o D D 0 H 0 >, O 8 Water usage Deschutes Water Master: Not an issue ncrease in crime 1 No evidence Misinformation • • • Waste county funds is 0 -f- D 0 46- c D .4E- ()) -e,. E 0 32 g 2 issues and concerns 0 0 Hemp market wi ncrease in odor o 0 o •ca) :4= - 0 3 O 0 h (7 • Z 1 1 1 1 1 ow Create a task force O O c O 0 1 Miracle Greens Miracle Farms (OLCC Licensed Cannabis Producer) Amendment a) D H H _ cn 0 .15 C cE C a) O s U co O . >. H o. •....O a) i Q. a) H a) o c o = .. c = O a. D E O D cn y m Q H 1 1 CD 0 t1) V .0n a. L CD 0 L O -a0 H _ L a; o 2 Si1m V vn 1 ncrease restrictions and funding E H Q w w Za5 Z 0 a� V N W 0 W O. N Q = U Z '- Q N = O LU N i 0 co In W 0 W elN am W X 150 farms : > 2000 acres a w w Z� Z o tel W W h W_ V W H W 0 W 0- V) 4) N U °' lhomi 00 g i 0 OU •0 n O = U D CI - N LU 0 W 0. N 0 c U E O Umic 'cm O O 0 to 0 to Hemp: > 2000 acres & > 150 farms P �. v aw } L �L O 0 L o 5%,. c%.. Eoill It >. .4 0 O 0 O Lu m O 0 O = ..- .0 • EF- O 14e- CD -ci = 1--a M>4) u H di i 4 L L-0 -0_ -0 0 — 0 O O o O a .y c o c E , >'M >s o s � s I 1 1 1 Hemp Farms Google Maps / Tuma 0 a� 0 } N.6 years of supply N• 0 0 E 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 1 Water usage Deschutes Water Master: Not an issue i V sc ncrease 1 No evidence Misinformation • • • Waste county funds (e3 U 0 L.L continue to increase Hemp market wi ncrease in odor deny your amendments take over regulations issues and concerns a 2 E W V o .AA,, W 16 (1) w Eue. o _ 0 aw Create a task force You are not Salem BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony r, Subject: M W15/1//n/9--- ,..- Agenda Item Number: Name ja)vd---t Address Phone #s ovk Date: - f E-mail address In Favor of Application Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Application Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? ja Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. ** SUBMIT TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS No o zA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Citizen Input or Testimony 0414tettei Agenda Item Number: Name Address L(0) 5-40 c,. Date: 3° /7 Phone #s q -(o E-mail address zci ActSak, T. (,C Gfc-a-„,c, c Jin Favor of Application Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Application -rz f ore off-_ 0-L Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony?l,,� Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. ** SUBMIT TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS No Marijuana Applications As of June 19, 2019 approved: Approved Marijuana Applications 49 Marijuana Production 8 Marijuana Processing 3 Marijuana Wholesaling 2 Marijuana Retail Type 247 -16 -000525 -AD 247 -16 -000526 -AD / 527 SP 247 -17 -000742 -AD / 743 -SP Marijuana Production Marijuana Processing Marijuana Processing 247 -16 -000534 -AD 247 -16 -000602 -AD Marijuana Production Marijuana Production 247 -16 -000541 -AD 247 -16 -000555 -AD 247 -16 -000580 -AD 247 -16 -000642 -AD 247 -16 -000735 -AD 247 -16 -000709 -AD / 710 SP 247 -16 -000728 -AD Marijuana Production Marijuana Production Marijuana Production Marijuana Production Marijuana Production Marijuana Processing Marijuana Production 247 -16 -000686 -AD 247 -17 -000004 -SP Marijuana Production MJ Wholesale Office 247 -16 -000809 -AD Marijuana Production 247 -16 -000835 -AD 247 -17 -000040 -AD Marijuana Production Marijuana Production 247 -16 -000810 -AD 247 -16 -000820 -AD 247 -16 -000821 -AD / 822 -SP 247 -17 -000029 -AD 247 -17 -00089 -SP 247 -17 -00482 -PS Marijuana Production Marijuana Production Marijuana Processing Marijuana Production MJ Wholesale Office OLCC Wholesale 247 -17 -000076 -AD 247 -17. -000080 -AD Marijuana Production Marijuana Production 247 -17 -000127 -AD Marijuana Production 247 -17 -000201 -AD Marijuana Production 247 -17 -000240 -CU Marijuana Production 247 -17 -000175 -AD Marijuana Production 247 -17 -000310 -CU Marijuana Production 247 -17 -000211 -AD Marijuana Production 247 -17 -000151 -AD 247 -17 -000208 -AD; 520-A 247 -17 -000145 -AD / 511-A Marijuana Production Marijuana Production Marijuan Production 247 -17 -000657 -SP MJ Wholesale Office 247 -17 -000075 -AD Marijuana Production 247 -17 -000758 -CU; 17 -000759 -SP Marijuana Retail 247 -17 -000496 -AD Marijuana Production 247 -17 -000217 -AD; 723-A Marijuana Production 247 -17 -000784 -AD 247 -17 -000604 -AD Marijuana Production Marijuana Production 247 -18 -000044 -AD Marijuana Production 247 -17 -001002 -AD Marijuana Production 247 -17 -000925 -CU; 926 -LM 247 -17 -000994 -AD Marijuana Production Marijuana Production 247 -17 -000907 -AD Marijuana Production 247 -17 -000908 -AD 247 -17 -000862 -AD Marijuana Production Marijuana Production 247 -18 -000053 -AD Marijuana Production 247 -18 -000027 -AD Marijuana Production 247 -17 -000936 -AD; 18-206-A Marivana Production 247 -17 -000577 -AD; 578 -SP 247 -17 -000692 -AD Marijuana Processing Marijuana Production 247 -17 -000827 -AD Marijuana Production 247 -18 -000318 -CU; 319 -SP Marijuana Retail 247 -18 -000 -338 -AD Marijuana Production 247 -18 -000198 -AD 247 -18 -000199 -AD; 200 -SP 247 -17 -000905 -AD 247 -17 -000939 -AD; 940 -SP; 18-412-A Marijuana Production Marijuana Processing Marijuana Production Marijuana Processing 247 -18 -000 -222 -CU Marijuana Production 247 -18 -000361 -AD; 766-A Marijuana Production 247 -18 -000051 -AD; 792-A Marijuana Production 247 -18 -000887 -AD; 888 -SP Marijuana Processing Marijuana Extensions 247-19-000432-E Denied Marijuana Applications 247 -16 -000600 -AD; 247-000036-A 247 -16 -000815 -CU; 17 -000129 -SP; 452 -RC 247 -17 -000172 -AD; 803-A 247 -17 -000173 -SP / 180 -AD 247 -17 -000645 -CU; 962-A 247 -17 -000755 -AD; 18-205-A 247 -17 -000833 -AD; 424-A 247 -18 -000128 -AD; 899-A 247 -18 -000379 -AD; 754-A Type Extension for Marijuana Production Type Marijuana Production Marijuana Retail Marijuana Production Marijuana Processing Marijuana Production Marijuana Production Marijuana Production Marijuana Production Marijuana Production 247 -18 -000545 -CU; 546 -SP; 19-141-A 247 -18 -000890 -AD; 19-161-A Withdrawn Applications 247 -16 -000751 -SP / 752 -CU 247 -17 -000293 -AD 247 -17 -000349 -CU; 350 -SP 247 -17 -000612 -AD; 17-923-A 247 -17 -000825 -AD; 826 -SP 247 -17 -000830 -AD 247 -17 -000831 -AD; 18-049-A 247 -17 -000993 -CU 247 -17 -001017 -AD 247 -18 -000047 -AD; 452-A; 453-A; 247 -18 -000075 -AD; 474-A; 47; 479-A 247-18-000581-N UV 247 -18 -000959 -MC Pending Marijuana Applications 247 -18 -000504 -AD; 178-A 247 -18 -505 -AD; 506 -SP 247 -18 -000610 -AD 247 -18 -000915 -AD; 19-431-A 247 -19 -000294 -MC 247 -19 -000335 -MC 247-19-000355-N UV Marijuana Retail Marijuana Production Type Marijuana Retail Marijuana Production Marijuana Retail Marijuana Production Marijuana Processing Marijuana Production Marijuana Production Marijuana Production Marijuana Production Marijuana Production Marijuana Production Marijuana Production Modification of Approval Type Marijuana Production Marijuana Processing Marijuana Production Marijuana Production Modification of Approval Modification of Approval Marijuana Production BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony die/pi) v dteige et- IA/ /1074 /_//442._ ra � Subject: Lammtre s/ P✓oQ/a 4.71.4, ZO hie- Date: 7 Agenda Item Number: Name Address c:: 4di-t CO 2975- / UG C A_ /2rd1, o.rro) ©,e. 9773'6 Phone #s £/J- o/ c/ E-mail address C'eride r- 2d/8 "vs r.+iY s ec,..� In Favor of Application Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Application Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Yes XtNo ** SUBMIT TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING o /Av c REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: W64/114 Agenda Item Number: Name Pifee_ereice,A) Date: / Address YUX () x%770/ Phone #sg''6)s� E-mail address OWE t %gam"/ iY6 e /1it& 6 In Favor of Application Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Application Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes [ -0\10 If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. ** SUBMIT TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: ''`a'``"' Date: Agenda Item Number: 1 a (/1 l� Name Address (R 1,0,1 Ca2--'3tk »7bDs j5( 7 JT c %) 7 d/ Phone#s s `fi t 3 -895'4, E-mail address bVZ rte .04) -c -a.4.. gi' P4 (45 .1* In Favor of Application Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Application Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Yes ** SUBMIT TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS No BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: {) V" 20\ Agenda Item Number: Name Lr\c\se u Date: 7 Address M -8,A 2,6 E C.) KJ ,\< . . ?C `. ' GlC - c0-1 )-e. b0 . 6 1 Phone #s S �( 2 r, 9 3 G E-mail address nc\ShC}c eC� rrr�a.r-, (-c)rv-� 1 U U In Favor of Application Neutral/Undecided pposed to Application Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? es No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. eff)2a06) SUBMIT TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE t MEETING BEGINS AWc\- c ** Subject: (:,--4Avviu, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony 5 s) Agenda Item Number: AbALut,-0— Name Address 67 AAA) coca ci-77e1-22 Phone #s C 6cS'�� Date: E-mail address Atm e0 v (0 W` In Favor of Application Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Application Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Yes ** SUBMIT TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING Subject: J REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Agenda Item Number: Name J12/ '�2Y Address / 74; / '% 1 s /- S /- Phone #s Date: 7-?-/, E-mail address r'In Favor of Application Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Application Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Yes ** SUBMIT TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: ��� p�9-VC 0N M,tee- Z -Ji 4 -a-xA 1.r4 0 V) 1.0.# t -S Agenda Item Number: Name Date: -..101 (M)1`i Address 6vo bot/0t74pU Phone #s E-mail address In Favor of Application Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Application Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. ** SUBMIT TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS No List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 1 Oni ? 2 Mohamed Abdrabbo 3 Hassan Abdulkarim 4 Jared Abshire 5 Ryan Achee 6 Bonnie Acosta 7 Lance Adair 8 Ashlynn Adams 9 Brandi Adams 10 Dayshaneika Adams 11 Julia Adams 12 Keith Adams 13 Kristin Adams 14 Jonathan Adamson 15 Jack Addison 16 Lori Adkins 17 Renn Adsir 18 Sheyla Aguirre 19 Blain Albaugh 20 DeAnna Albin 21 Debra Aldridge 22 Jack Aldridge 23 Lorraine Aldridge 24 Alexis Alexander 25 Dennis Alexander 26 Leenah Ali 27 Rosita Alicea 28 Charity Allen 29 Jeff Allison 30 Yousef Alsiraj 31 Susan Altman 32 Jon Ambjor 33 Nina Ambjor 34 Arya Amuzgar 35 Julie Anderson 36 Dean Anderson 37 Marshall Anderson 38 Nona Anderson 39 Zachary Anderson 40 Michael Angulo 41 Joel Anthony 42 Gary Aprill 43 Toni April! 44 Rick Arnold 45 Jack Auerfeld 46 Franklin Austin 47 Kareem Awls List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 48 Pauline Aylett 49 Shelley Babcock 50 Caleb Babineaux 51 Dave Baca 52 Matthew Baccus 53 Kathy Bailea 54 Kaine Bailey 55 Nancy Baldrick 56 Ashley Baldwin 57 John Balleweg 58 Karen Bandy 59 Lesley Bangest 60 Melissa Barber 61 Janetta Barber 62 Don Barbour 63 David Barclay 64 Curt Barker 65 Taylor Barker 66 Logan Barker-Bigos 67 Robin Barnes 68 Victoria Barnes 69 William Barnes 70 Aidan Barrette 71 Ruth Barrios 72 Margot Barron 73 Ron Barry 74 Highland Baptsist Barry Campbell 75 Janis Barthelemy 76 Bart Bartholomew 77 Vito Bartolotta? 78 Jason Bass 79 Melvin Bates 80 Kaylyn Battles 81 Paige Beach 82 Raymond Beacham 83 Rey Bear 84 Tim Beard 85 Vincent Beckham 86 Narendra Bedl 87 Jessyca Beehner 88 Rosalie Beer 89 Karmen Behm 90 Mary Belding 91 Malia Bell 92 Rose Bell 93 Deborah Bell 94 Nita Belles List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 95 Linda Bendix 96 Kitty Bennett 97 Courtney Benoit 98 Amber Bentley 99 Cody Beretkoff? 100 Carl Berg 101 Steph Berg 102 Chery Bergemann 103 Ashley Bergeron 104 Joey Bergeron 105 Zenaida Berlinski 106 Ethan Berry 107 Treylen Bessix 108 Eric Bewley 109 Pam Bierly 110 Nicole Bigelow 111 Beth Bilton-Smith 112 Mark Bilton-Smith 113 Micah Bilton-Smith 114 Kim Bishop 115 Marjorie Bishop 116 Vince Bishop 117 Jared Black 118 Ashley Blackwell 119 John Blanchard 120 Susan Blanchard 121 Dennis Teitzel BLM 122 Jeff Kitchens BLM 123 Gretchen Blocker 124 Joseph Boisenau 125 Ann Bond 126 Alyssa Bonfiglio 127 Rechel Bonilla 128 Joanna Booser 129 Kameron Booth 130 Osbie Booth 131 Thomas Boulanger 132 Johnathan Bourgeois 133 Jordynn Bourgeois 134 Braeden Bourque 135 James Bouziane 136 Keith Bowe 137 Sandy Bowechop 138 RF Bowen 139 Avery Bowers 140 Shawn Bowman 141 Markyhjahnee Boyd List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 142 Parker Boyd 143 Joey Boyne 144 Ronald Braatz 145 Lucy Brackett 146 Donald Bradetich 147 Jeri Bradetich 148 Heidi Brannin 149 Nadine Brannin 150 Richard Brannin 151 Nathan Braun 152 Keyonna Braxton 153 David Brehm 154 Donna Brehm 155 Saida Brema 156 Nancy Breniman 157 Jeremy Brent 158 Laurel Brenton 159 Sara Brescia 160 Stephen Brisken 161 Jared Brody 162 Charles Brooks 163 Kaitlyn Brooks 164 Karen Brooks 165 KB Brooks 166 Ron Brooks 167 Robert Brousard 168 Adam Brown 169 Bart Brown 170 Brian Brown 171 Carey Brown 172 Dixie Brown 173 Joscelyn Brown 174 Kathie Brown 175 Laturra Brown 176 Sally Brown 177 Jerry Brown 178 Linda Bruce 179 Ashley Brugger 180 Susan Brunkow 181 Brent Brusett 182 Stephanie Brusett 183 Colin Bu 184 Debbie Bucher 185 Sara Buels 186 Matt Bullat 187 Quentin Bullie 188 Shawanna Bumpers List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 189 Carol Bunge 190 John Bunge 191 Ann Bunnenberg 192 Sandra Burgess 193 KC Burk 194 Valeisha Burk 195 Aeron Burkhardt 196 Mark Burkhardt 197 Matthew Burkhardt 198 Sharon Burkhardt 199 Wendy Burkhardt 200 Micah Burkley 201 Tammy Burkley 202 Alice Burnett 203 Linda Burns 204 Tracey Burnside 205 Tyler Burrell 206 Cameron Burridge 207 Andrew Bush 208 Tyler Bushhorm 209 Gabby Buss 210 Monica Butler 211 Kathy Caba 212 Matthew Cahoon 213 Gage Cailler 214 Jennifer Cain 215 Steve Calavan 216 Russell Callahan 217 David Campbell 218 Judge Hal Campbell 219 Mary Campbell 220 Ronnie Campbell 221 Janet Cannella 222 Peter Cardillo 223 Karen Cardin 224 Colby Carlisle 225 Matthew Carmon 226 Sam Carpenter 227 Chadwick Carter 228 Christine Carter 229 Ethan Carter 230 Tiara Carter 231 Zach Carter 232 Leonardo Cascone 233 Ben Casper 234 John Cassidy 235 Bill Castillo List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 236 Christopher Castillo 237 Janice Castle 238 Corey Caswell 239 Steve Caton 240 Leo Cauley 241 Linda CavaIli Nelson 242 Jeffrey Cecchetti 243 Aprille Chadwell 244 Sarah Champagne 245 Bree-Ann Chase 246 Michael Chatman 247 Carl Chauvin 248 Cassie Chesterfield 249 Sarah Chigbu 250 Bryan Chiravalle 251 Chaise Choate 252 Kim Christoffersen 253 Sihl Chung 254 Ranae Ciccotelli 255 James Ciras 256 Amy Citron 257 Amanda Clark 258 Ellen Clarke 259 Stewart Clarke 260 Simone Clay 261 John Clayson 262 Sherri Clemens 263 Randy Clement 264 Katelyn Clift 265 Ken Clouse 266 Tom Clouse 267 Miriam Clune 268 Barbara Cobb 269 Dan Cochrane 270 Ken Coco 271 Michelle Cody 272 Brooke Colburn 273 Sanders Cole 274 Kendell Coleman 275 Dennis Collins 276 Jadd Collins 277 Mary Collins 278 Christopher Conant 279 Horace Conde 280 Blake Conerly 281 Larry Confer 282 Jonathen Conley List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 283 Juan Contreras 284 Kira Cook 285 Rodney Cook 286 John Cooley 287 Kwenn Cooley 288 Kandi Cormier 289 Brittany Corr 290 James Corson 291 Linda Corson 292 Derrick Cotton 293 Gloria Courtney 294 Richard Crabtree 295 Bill Crager 296 Dre Crawford 297 Joan Crenshaw 298 John Crim 299 Brandon Cromwell 300 Alicia Cronin 301 Patricia Crosby 302 Sherry Cruickshank 303 Josiah Cruikshank 304 Alfonso Cruz 305 Dawson Cruz 306 Gabe Cruz 307 Trishia CuIley 308 Roberta Dahm 309 Ronald Dahm 310 Clinton Dalrymple 311 Patrick Daniels 312 Susan Daniels 313 Bryce Dannenberg 314 Milton Danos 315 Michael Darling 316 Jan Davey 317 Jerome Davey 318 Ron Davidson 319 Barbara Davis 320 Carolyn Davis 321 Harold Davis 322 Jeremy Davis 323 Mary Davis 324 Sam Davis 325 Thomas Davis 326 Nancy Davis 327 Drew Day 328 George Day 329 Solange Dean List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 330 Palare DeBoise 331 David DeCouncey 332 Ron Deems 333 David Degenhardt 334 Kathryn Degenhardt 335 Oscar DeHamer 336 Sophia DelBene 337 Aaron DeLoach 338 Alex DeLuca 339 Jason Demas 340 Lee Dempsey 341 Marlene Dempsey 342 Frank DeMunno 343 Linda Denali 344 Tom Denali 345 Cheri Detweiler 346 Don Detweiler 347 Rebecca Deveraux 348 Rob Dewitt 349 Robert Dewitt 350 Venita Dick 351 Connor Dickinson 352 Tanner Dillard 353 Larry Dillman 354 Sherri Dillman 355 Daiya Dillman? 356 Victoria Di!more-Weiler 357 Tim DiPaolo 358 Wendy DiPaolo 359 Cody Disanto 360 Dennis Dobrick 361 Nathan Dodge 362 Stacey Dodge 363 Alidene Doherty 364 Carlos Dominguez 365 Kevin Donaldson 366 Brian Doran 367 Janet Dorgan 368 Amanda Downing 369 Kehnema Downing 370 Christopher Doyle 371 Corinne Dray 372 Jeremy Dreitlein 373 Sergio Duarte 374 Denise Dudley 375 Daniel Dumas 376 Lorna Dumas List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 377 Bree Duncans 378 Donyelle Durbin 379 Ronald Dye 380 Camille Eastin 381 Nancy Ebbecke 382 Daja Edwards 383 Jennifer Edwards 384 Meka Edwards 385 Julia Eidukas 386 Joseph Ellender 387 Brian Elliott 388 Aryan Ellis 389 Larry Ellison 390 Nancy Engelhard 391 Derrick Engweiler 392 Glenn Engweiler 393 Misha Entin 394 David Erbach 395 Duane Erickson 396 Carroll Eschete 397 Angel Espinoza 398 Chloe Espinoza 399 Lois Eugene 400 Erica Evans 401 Charlie Every 402 Wendie Every 403 Cybil Ewalt 404 Tim Ewalt 405 Katy Exner 406 Fred Fall 407 Betty Faller 408 Fenn Family 409 Sandy Fares 410 Randall Fargher 411 Ronald Faris 412 Cindi Farmer 413 Gloria Farmer 414 Joe Farmer 415 Sydney Farrimond 416 Mandy Faulkner 417 Alexander Fears 418 Candice Featherston 419 Natalie Fehlberg 420 Kenneth Fenicle 421 Mary Ferguson 422 Percy Ferguson 423 Mary Fernandez List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 424 Rigoberto Fernandez 425 Deborah Finck 426 Howard Finck 427 Arthur Finn 428 Scott Finnerty 429 Brionna Finney 430 Lynnette Fisher 431 Denese Fitzmaurice 432 Todd Fitzmaurice 433 Thelma Fix 434 Kate Flaherty 435 Kristie Flanagan 436 Patrick Flanagan 437 Luis Flores 438 Michael Flores 439 Julia Follansbee 440 Ginger Foote 441 Mr. Foote 442 Deb Ford 443 Marcus Ford 444 Rob Ford 445 Steve Ford 446 Doug Forth 447 Billy Foster 448 Calvin Foster 449 Elsie Foster 450 Mandy Foster 451 Dave Fox 452 Brad Fraley 453 Kami Fraley 454 Marti Fraley 455 Dustin Francis 456 Diane Franklin 457 Joseph Franko 458 Pamela Frauhiger 459 Ericka Fredricks 460 Daniel Freeman 461 Megan French 462 Thomas Friedlein 463 Curtis Frink 464 Jan Frink 465 Marian Frostenson 466 Judy Gage Scott 467 Annabell Galarza 468 John Gal!man 469 David Gallucci 470 Sheri Gallucci List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 471 Lucas Galvez 472 Kim Gamble 473 Ana Garcia 474 Leticia Garcia 475 Roman Garcia 476 Wyatt Garrett 477 Broderick Garrette 478 Tamara Garrett -Zimmerman 479 Ann Garrey 480 Robert Garrey 481 Cindi Garvie 482 Kate Gaseitsiwe 483 Justin Gasparas 484 Patrick Gasta 485 Larry Gates 486 Leslie Gauthier 487 Pradeep Gayan 488 Caleb Gebo 489 Ashley Gegenfurtner 490 Judie Geist 491 Jichang Geng 492 Xiaoxioa Geng 493 Cheryl Giannini 494 Casey Gibbs 495 D Casey Gibbs 496 Laurilea Gibbs 497 Justin Gibson 498 Sophia Gigliotti 499 Kaylee Giguere 500 Daniel Gilder 501 Cindy Gillaspie 502 Michael Gillaspie 503 Claire Gillette 504 Terrell Gilmore 505 Faith Gilpin 506 Joel Gisler 507 Julia Gisler 508 Dale Glanders 509 Jeff Glassberg 510 Reid Glasshoff 511 Jan Glazier 512 Tyler Glover 513 John Gomes 514 Alan Gomez 515 Lisa Gomez 516 Michael Goncalves 517 L Scott Goodrich List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 518 Wanda Goodrich 519 Jay Gordon 520 Gary Gore 521 Lori Gore 522 Nunzie Gould 523 Sally Goya 524 Dariusz Grabarczyk 525 Michaela Grabenhorst 526 Steve Grabenhorst 527 Samantha Graca 528 Myrna Graham 529 Steven Graham 530 Kathy Graves 531 Carol Gray 532 Dominque Grayer 533 Perry Green 534 Todd Greenawalt 535 Arthur Gregg 536 Debra Gregory 537 Carol Griffin 538 Rodesha Griffin 539 Donna Griggs 540 Kayla Griggs 541 Ronald Griggs 542 Lauren Grigsby 543 Carla Grinuck-Wood 544 Martha Groeneveld 545 Blair Gross 546 Kelly Groth 547 Brenda Guisinger 548 Madison Gulley 549 Nani Gurr 550 Suk Gurung 551 Angelina Gutierrez 552 Noemy Gutierrez 553 Rodolfo Gutierrez 554 Darren Gyford 555 Byron Hadley 556 Sharon Hadley 557 Eric Hagan 558 Marci Hagan 559 Blake Hagan 560 Jay Hagan 561 Marquita Hain 562 Scott Hale 563 Jan Hall 564 Ken Hall List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 565 Darlene Hallam 566 Robin Halpin 567 Alec Hamilton 568 Loren Hamman 569 Brent Hammer 570 Peter Hammett 571 Prudence Hammett 572 Vanessa Hancock 573 Jacob Hand 574 Kirstein Hannas 575 Steve Hannas 576 Judy Hansen 577 Kenda Hansen 578 Roger Hansen 579 Jason Hansen 580 Linda Hanson 581 Lauren Harless 582 Jill Harley 583 Jon Harrang 584 Shawn Harrang 585 Douglas Harrell 586 Chantel Harris 587 Damon Harris 588 Daniel Harris 589 Donya Harris 590 Heidi Harris 591 Sheila Harris 592 Trevor Harris 593 Jeffery Harris 594 Rhonda Harrison 595 Zion Hart 596 Jack Hartley 597 Katherine Hartley 598 Pat Hartley 599 Christy Hartman 600 Eric Hartman 601 Jack Hasebe 602 Joseph Hasebe 603 Richard Hastings 604 Rebecca Hatchell 605 Howard Hatten 606 Thomas Hauck 607 Kobi Hawkins 608 Joel Hayes 609 John Hayes 610 Kristy Hayes 611 Kailie Haynes List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 612 Victor Hayton 613 Sherron Hazel 614 Zelun He 615 Lawrence Heaston 616 Rebecca Heaston 617 Devyn Hebert 618 Nate Hebert 619 Dan Hebrard 620 Deborah Helmricks 621 Seth Henderson 622 Sylvia Henderson 623 Therese Henderson 624 Cody Hennigan 625 Viana Henry 626 Christian Hensen 627 Jim Henson 628 Allan Herauf 629 Nancy Hermanns 630 Doug Hermanson 631 Betty Hernandez 632 Leonardo Hernandez 633 Hailey Herron 634 Gabe Herstig 635 Richard Hess 636 Christy Higuera 637 Justice Hillery 638 Johnthon Hills 639 Bill Hinchliff 640 Tina Hinchliff 641 Tim Hinds 642 Dana Hines 643 Amilia Hiritiko 644 Gunther Hirschmann 645 Marisol Hirschmann 646 Brett Hodgson 647 Michelle Hodgson 648 Ray Holcomb 649 Tyindonesia Holden 650 Kim Hollands 651 Sherri Holler 652 Ellen Hollister 653 Lynn Hollister 654 Rowan Hollitz 655 Angela Holmes 656 Kathleen Hoonhout 657 Chris Hopkins 658 Jann Hopkins List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 659 Joel Hopp 660 Carolyn Horner 661 Marc Horner 662 Alexis Horton 663 Randy Horton 664 Carol Houser 665 Ron Houser 666 Mikale Houston 667 Holly Hower 668 Chris Hoy 669 Chelsea Hoyt-Gloeckner 670 Terry Hubbard 671 Arianna Hudson 672 Robert Hudson 673 Larry Huget 674 Patrick Hughes 675 Penny Hughes 676 Tiffany Hughes 677 Patricia Hughes 678 James Hulsey 679 Cardiz Humble 680 Charlene Hunt 681 Gary Hunt 682 Cassandra Hunt 683 Laurel Hunter 684 Lisa Huo 685 James Tim Hurley 686 Allen Hurn 687 James Hyek 688 Gabriel Indiongco 689 Mer Ingleses 690 Jack Intlekofer 691 John Intlekofer 692 Michael Inyang 693 John lwamura 694 Jack Jackson 695 Jay Jay Jackson 696 Precious Jackson 697 Tiana Jackson 698 Vincent Jackson 699 Jeremy Jacobson 700 James James 701 Robert James 702 Renee Jarvis 703 Marquies Jasper 704 Jeff Jefferson 705 Tom Jenkins List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 706 Ray Jensen 707 Jan Jensen 708 Kathy Jensen 709 Brandon Jepson 710 Tylor Jewell 711 Christina Jiang 712 Jonathan Jiles 713 Joan Johansen 714 Joel Johansen 715 April Johnson 716 Dominick Johnson 717 Larry Johnson 718 Lorenzo Johnson 719 Richard Johnson 720 Ted Johnson 721 Thavia Johnson 722 William Johnson 723 Ida Johnston 724 Brenna Joiner 725 Adam Jones 726 David Jones 727 Emily Jones 728 Evan Jones 729 Jessica Jones 730 Jessie Jones 731 Mary Claire Jones 732 Randy Jones 733 Susan Jones 734 Willie Jones 735 David Jones 736 Patricia Jones 737 Jennifer Jordan 738 Alwin Joseph 739 Erin Joubert 740 Adam Kaluba 741 Todd Kane 742 Trisha Karcher 743 Lindsey Kardashian 744 Janelle Kasabasic 745 Mike Kass 746 Carmen Kauffman 747 Mike Keen 748 Bruce Keim 749 Abby Kellner -Rode 750 Andre Kellner -Rode 751 David Kellner -Rode 752 Dave Kelly List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 753 Maddie Kelly 754 Melissa Kelly 755 Mary Kelly 756 Jay Kennedy 757 Robert Kennedy 758 Alex Kenyon 759 Stephen Ker 760 Xerin Kewrsh 761 Rebecca Khort 762 Robert Khort 763 Valerie Kifer 764 Brittany King 765 Cynthia King 766 Jeanette King 767 Jeremiah King 768 Judson King 769 Richard King 770 Vonda King 771 Bob King 772 Dorlee Kingen 773 Marcy Kirk 774 Steve Kirk 775 Marie Kitchen 776 Brooke Klein 777 John Klein 778 Jodi Klein 779 Michael Kline 780 Suzanne Kline 781 Krista Knoernschild 782 Abigail Kochersberger 783 Eliot Koehn 784 Vickie Kommer 785 Tatiana Konkel 786 J. Diane Kook 787 Jeanette Kook 788 Kenneth Koonce 789 Rodney Kopish 790 Shayne Koran 791 Anna Kosmas 792 Marcy Kouadio 793 Marianne Kramer 794 Joyce Kreminski 795 Linda Krogh 796 Spencer Krueger 797 Spencer Krueger 798 Ed Kruskamp 799 Douglas Krutzikowky List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 800 Michael Kusinsko 801 Richard LaFever 802 Dennis Laird 803 Bruce Lakin 804 Zach Laliberte 805 Lisa Lamberto 806 Josh Lange 807 Daniel Lapz 808 Christopher Lara 809 Dean Larkin 810 Patty Larkin 811 Domonique Lastrapes 812 Krista Lauinger 813 Brenda Laurent 814 Liz Lawrence 815 Vance Lawrence 816 Bodhi Layer -Carlson 817 Don Leavey 818 Joey LeBlanc 819 Bena Lechner 820 Alison Lee 821 Deborah Lee 822 Nathan Lee 823 Steven Lee 824 Kimberly Leek 825 Sophia Leeper 826 Mary Lefevre 827 Matthew Leisure 828 Maria Lena 829 Allison Lengele 830 Brandon Lester 831 Charles Leutwyler 832 Glenda Leutwyler 833 Brenda Levine 834 Drew Levine 835 Anne Lewis 836 Denice Lewis 837 Devin Lewis 838 James Lewis 839 William Lewis 840 Michelle Lews 841 Jeannie Liderman 842 Selina Lilly 843 Scott Linden 844 Ed Lindstrom 845 Lance Lingelbach 846 Diane Lingo List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 847 Ruijun Liu 848 Xinyun Liu 849 Diana Loadman 850 Eugene Lochbrunner 851 Autumn Loewen 852 Nick Loewen 853 Roam Logan 854 Ella Lombardo 855 Darin Lones 856 Mary Long 857 Dennis Long 858 Ronald Long 859 Terry Looney 860 Ricardo Lopez 861 Jordan Lorensen 862 Jesse Loun 863 Oral Lounds 864 Pamela Lovegren 865 Ruth Lovegren 866 Alicia Lovejoy 867 Mark Lovejoy 868 Mary Elizabeth Lovering 869 Wayne Low 870 John Lowas 871 Nancy Lowas 872 Chris Lowell 873 Celeste Loyd 874 Nancy Ludwig 875 Judith Lunny 876 Michael Lunny 877 Gwen Lyon 878 Simon Mackin 879 Deon Maddox 880 Sussan Madsen 881 Gwendolyn Magee 882 Kathy Maggiora 883 Kevin Maggiora 884 Anne Magnus 885 Josh Maher 886 Paul Mahfouz 887 Danielle Malbreaux 888 Edward Maldonado 889 Juan Maldonado 890 Shelly Malkin 891 Don Malnar 892 Sandy Malone 893 Brogan Maloney List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 894 JC Manas 895 Amanda Mand 896 Brianna Manselle 897 Carson Manselle 898 Teri Manselle 899 Trevor Marcel 900 Brian Marchese 901 Marissa Marciano 902 Cody Marcoulier 903 Shawn Marcoulier 904 Patricia Marion 905 Cristina Markell 906 Aaron Marley 907 David Marlow 908 Sandy Marlow 909 Marsha Marr 910 Caleb Marsh 911 Prentiss Marshall 912 Sue Martin 913 Jaol Martin 914 Roy Martin 915 Jason Martinez 916 Sandra Martinez 917 Craig Martini 918 Gary Mason 919 Jeri Mason 920 Maimilien Mata 921 Colton Matranga 922 Bret Matteis 923 Elijah Matteson 924 Mark Matthews 925 Tony Matthews 926 City of Redmond Mayor Endicott 927 David Mays 928 Sheri Mays 929 Adam McAboy 930 LG McAdam 931 Susan McAdam 932 Jessica McBeth 933 Rose McCalley 934 Laura Ann McCallum 935 Laurie McCallum 936 Jim McConnell 937 Mrs. McConnell 938 Jordan Kevin McCormack 939 Bill McCormick 940 Jim McCoy List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 941 John McCoy 942 Carson McCrory 943 Cortessa McCullum 944 Dennis McDonald 945 Donna Marie McDonnell 946 John McDonnell 947 David McDowell 948 Charles McFadden 949 Dustin McFarland 950 Daniel McGiII 951 Martha McGinnis 952 Tim McGinnis 953 Layla McGlone 954 Matt McGlone 955 Loreal McGuffey 956 Rebecca Mcllhenny 957 Don McKeown 958 Margaret McKeown 959 Linda McMahon 960 Chad McMillin 961 Ron McPeak 962 Ashley Meaux 963 Jamison Melchier 964 Deborah Melhase 965 Meltan Metter 966 Amanda Meltzer 967 Brad Meltzer 968 April Mendoza 969 Denyse Mendoza 970 Darla Merandy 971 Roland Merandy 972 Gail Merydith 973 Steve Merydith 974 Ruth Ann Metteer-Nisbet 975 Norma Metzger 976 Lynda Metzger-Teutsch 977 Gigi Meyer 978 Lori Michael 979 Amanda Michael McIntosh 980 Redmond School 1 Michael McIntosh 981 Christine Michaelsen 982 Ken Michaelsen 983 Em Mikoloski 984 Blake Miller 985 Craig Miller 986 Howard Miller 987 Judy Miller List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 988 Julie Miller 989 Marion Miller 990 Dusty Miller 991 Debra Minchew 992 Tyson Miner 993 John Minor 994 Rheagan Minton 995 Bryan Mirafuentes 996 Matthew Mire 997 Drew Mitten 998 Steve Mohr 999 Kathleen Mollohan 1000 Pookie Monem 1001 Kassidy Monroe 1002 Michael Moon 1003 Arleigh Mooney 1004 Chrissie Moore 1005 Gabriel Morales 1006 Geraldo Morales 1007 Stephanie Morales 1008 Jim Moran 1009 Richard Moreheart? 1010 Daniel Moreno 1011 Mike Morgan 1012 Isaiah Morin 1013 Joseph Morley 1014 Margaret Morley 1015 James Morrell 1016 V.H. Morrell 1017 Arielle Morris 1018 Karen Morris 1019 Dawn Morrison 1020 Jay Morrison 1021 Phillip Morrison 1022 Sandy Morrison 1023 Barbara Morton 1024 Richard Morton 1025 Steven Morvant 1026 Brianna Moses 1027 Derrick Moten 1028 Michael Moullet 1029 Diane Moyerman 1030 Eric Moyerman 1031 Michael Mullin 1032 Priscilla Munoz 1033 Bridget Murdock 1034 Bruce Murdock List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 1035 Sharon Murphy 1036 Mark Murzin 1037 Ellen Musgrove 1038 Jeanie Myers 1039 Larry Myers 1040 Sabrina N? 1041 Kayla Nagelhout 1042 Tyler Nagelhout 1043 Brad Nagin 1044 Hareth Naji 1045 Sharon Najman 1046 Susan Narber 1047 Charles Nash 1048 Janet Nash 1049 Chasity Necole Gallo -Revere 1050 Maksim Nedvihin 1051 Kristen Neill 1052 Christine Nelson 1053 Linda Nelson 1054 Savannah Nelson 1055 Stuart Nelson 1056 Tanyah Nelson 1057 Traci Nelson 1058 Emerie Nessl 1059 Robert Nethercutt 1060 Roberta Nethercutt 1061 Phyllis Neumann 1062 Camille Newman 1063 Danny Newman 1064 Ramona Newman 1065 Matthew Newson 1066 Breanne Ng 1067 Richard Ngaya 1068 Danny Nguyen 1069 John Nicholson 1070 Shelby Nicholson 1071 Yihong Nie 1072 Howard Nielsen 1073 Filip Niewinski 1074 Dan Noelle 1075 Carol Nolte 1076 Linda Nolte 1077 Zoie Normans 1078 Gayle Norona 1079 Kelly Norton 1080 Nikki Nunez 1081 Jerry Nye List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 1082 Jerry Nye 1083 Tieon O'Bannon 1084 Dennis O'Donnell 1085 Peggy O'Donnell 1086 Joseph Ojeda 1087 Kris Olin 1088 Antonia Oliver 1089 Kara Oliver 1090 Christopher Olsen 1091 Eric Olson 1092 Gentle Onuora 1093 Alexis Ordogne 1094 Bonnie O'Reilly 1095 Pete O'Reilly 1096 Jose Orozco 1097 Robert Ortiz 1098 Christine O'Shields-Crosby 1099 Elian Osorio 1100 Patrick Othites 1101 Alora Otto 1102 Nick Oyler 1103 Tim Paden 1104 Carlos Pagan-Arocho 1105 David Page 1106 Chandon Pajard 1107 Eliezer Palomino 1108 Jeff Pardo 1109 Giacomo Parisi 1110 Ronals Parquet 1111 Jaren Partman 1112 Ryan Passage 1113 David Patten 1114 Jared Patterson 1115 Kelley Patterson 1116 Steven Paulding 1117 Alissa Paulson 1118 Jeff Paulson 1119 Danny Pavlrty 1120 James Pawlak 1121 Christian Payne 1122 Linda Pearson 1123 Robert Pearson 1124 Sharie Peasley 1125 Gretchen Pederson 1126 Robert Pederson 1127 Leo Pellegrini 1128 Teresa Pelly List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 1129 Robert Pepiton 1130 Javier Perez 1131 Jeremiah Perez 1132 Luis Perez 1133 Raymond Perez 1134 Kristen Perna Scott 1135 Troy Pernaselci 1136 Robert Perry 1137 Bernadine Pete 1138 Colton Peters 1139 Braedon Peters 1140 Makaya Peters 1141 Michelle Peterson 1142 Patti Petroline 1143 Greg Petsch 1144 Mary Petsch 1145 Jim Petsche 1146 Reyna Phillips 1147 Zachary Phillips 1148 Mary Phosaid 1149 Lance Piatt 1150 Monika Piatt 1151 Torrey Piatt 1152 Andy Pinette 1153 Daniel Placido 1154 Shirley Platt 1155 John Pok 1156 Adrielle Pomeranz 1157 R Pomerenk 1158 David Pomeroy 1159 Debbie Poplin 1160 Diana Popp 1161 Brenna Porter 1162 Jerry Powell 1163 Judy Powell Hess 1164 Cheryl Price 1165 Constansa Prieto 1166 Jeff Puller 1167 Wendy Puller 1168 Sabrina Quesenberry 1169 Damien Quihuis 1170 John Quinn 1171 Mica Quinn 1172 Brian Quisenberry 1173 Caleb Rabold 1174 Emma Rach 1175 Ashikur Rahman List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 1176 Manuel Ramirez 1177 Lucy Rappette 1178 Jason Ratcliff 1179 Patricia Rauch 1180 Zennis Raven 1181 Alta Ray 1182 Cheryl Recota 1183 Robert Reddell 1184 Sabrina Reichert 1185 Robert Reinhard 1186 Marian Resler 1187 Stacy Rex 1188 Christian Reynolds 1189 Omar Reynoso 1190 Mandy Reynvaan 1191 Antonio Rhodes 1192 Jonathan Rhue 1193 Kenny Rice 1194 Lorraine Rice 1195 Barbara Rich 1196 Kara Richards 1197 Carmella Richardson 1198 Janine Richardson 1199 Jennifer Richardson 1200 Lloyd Richardson 1201 Lorene Richardson 1202 Reece Richardson 1203 Robert Richardson 1204 Alva Richardson 1205 Arianna Richkarday 1206 Greg Rider 1207 Cameron Rieger 1208 Samuel Riggan 1209 Brittany Riggs 1210 David Riley 1211 Cleme Rinehart 1212 Frank Ring 1213 Nancy Ring 1214 Robert Riter 1215 Susanne Ritter 1216 Bob Litmer River Springs Estates 1217 Ray Jensen River Springs Estates 1218 Sharon Williams -J River Springs Estates 1219 Lexi Rivette 1220 John Rizzo 1221 Silas Robbins 1222 Art Roberts List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 1223 Karen Roberts 1224 Lynn Roberts 1225 Sheryl Roberts 1226 Warren Roberts 1227 Cheyanne Robertson 1228 Earl Robicheaux 1229 Linda Rode 1230 Richard Rode 1231 Debra Rodgers 1232 James Rodgrigue 1233 Elias Rodgriguez 1234 Alec Rodriguez 1235 Cole Rodriguez 1236 Danny Rodriguez 1237 Myah Rodriguez 1238 Trinity Rodriguez 1239 Albert Rogers 1240 Alex Rogers 1241 Christina Rojas 1242 William Rolfe 1243 Jean Carlos Roman 1244 Ashley Romero 1245 CJ Rorabeck 1246 Ginger Rose 1247 Chris Rosenplanter 1248 Lisa Rosette 1249 Jamie Ross 1250 Keith Ross 1251 Tami Ross 1252 Avery Rosser 1253 Mike Rossetto 1254 David Rowe 1255 Levi Rowe 1256 Holly Royalty 1257 Alan Royse 1258 Debbyie Royse 1259 Edward Rubesh 1260 Ruben Rubinos 1261 Damon Ruel 1262 Sharon Rupert 1263 GR Ruppel 1264 Melvina Ruppel 1265 Molly Russell 1266 Thomas Russell 1267 Benjamin Ryan 1268 Denialz Ryu 1269 Michael Salard List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 1270 Cinthya Salgado 1271 Zubair Salim 1272 Adrianne Salmond 1273 Ashley Sanchez 1274 Robin Sanchez 1275 Ken Sandine 1276 Marie -Louise Sandine 1277 Diana Sandoval 1278 Emanuel Sandoval 1279 Joshua Sandoval 1280 Abdoulaye Sangare 1281 Marie Sanowski 1282 Kaisirys Santana 1283 Belinda Sarabia 1284 Janet Saulsberry 1285 Jovan Saunders 1286 Arya Sayadi 1287 Ronald Schafer 1288 Cheryl Scheer 1289 Denise Schill 1290 Benjamin Schimmoller 1291 Michael Schneegas 1292 Wesley Schneider 1293 Will Scholtz 1294 Diane Schrader 1295 Mike Schrader 1296 Ben Schuh 1297 Gerard Schultheis 1298 Kayle Schultheis 1299 Wendy Schultheis 1300 Robert Schultz 1301 Bobbie Schulze 1302 Robert Schuur 1303 Allister Schwarzenberger 1304 Emily Schwarzenberger 1305 Maddie Schwarzer 1306 Joseph Scott 1307 Larry Scott 1308 Matthew Scott 1309 Terri Scott 1310 Margaret Seay 1311 Gary Seay 1312 Jeff Seber 1313 Carl Sechrist 1314 Malaina Seegers 1315 Ryan Segrest 1316 Shawn Servo List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 1317 Grant Sessler 1318 Bill Settle 1319 Erin Shaffer 1320 Nate Shamblin 1321 Connor Shane 1322 William Sheaffer 1323 Djes Shejdj 1324 Charles Sherman 1325 Jodi Shimanek 1326 Rick Shoemaker 1327 Suzanne Shoemaker 1328 Mary Shrauger 1329 Dee Shultz 1330 Justyn Shuman 1331 George Sichler 1332 Suzanne Sichler 1333 Brad Siemens 1334 Heather Siemens 1335 Angel Siler 1336 Teresa Silliman 1337 Jackson Sills 1338 Jayne Simmons 1339 Lindsay Simmons 1340 Lamacy Simon 1341 Debbie Simpson 1342 Daon Sims 1343 Mel Sinmiller 1344 Isabella Siroky 1345 Rosie Sizer 1346 Nancy Skinner 1347 Allison Slaughter 1348 Teresa Slominski 1349 David Sloop 1350 Carol Smalley 1351 Mel Smalley 1352 Rodney Smallwood 1353 Brad Smith 1354 Dale Smith 1355 Kamen Smith 1356 Kimberly Smith 1357 Lillie Smith 1358 Martin Smith 1359 Nathalie Smith 1360 Percy Smith 1361 Scott Smith 1362 Thomas Smith 1363 Charles Smith List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 1364 Judy Smith 1365 Matt Smith 1366 Shelley Smith 1367 Vesta Smith 1368 Rachelle Smith -Mose 1369 Charley Snell 1370 Ryan Snook 1371 Hayden Snyder 1372 Madison Snyder 1373 Hunter Soileau 1374 Tonya Soileau 1375 Tori Solano 1376 Mary Sonner 1377 Will Sosa 1378 Connie Souther 1379 David Souther 1380 Rebecca Spanberger 1381 Denver Sparacio 1382 Allison Sparkman 1383 Savannah Spear 1384 Joshua Spice 1385 Carolyn Spicer 1386 Jerry Spiers 1387 Haley Spradlin 1388 Becky Sprague 1389 Steve Sprague 1390 Glen Spruell 1391 Melissa Stallcup 1392 David Standerwick 1393 Michelle Standerwick 1394 Judith Stanger -Taylor 1395 Bobby Stanley 1396 Alina Stannard 1397 Brenda Stanton 1398 Kailey Stanworth 1399 Gail Starr 1400 Laurie Steffen 1401 Randell Steffen 1402 Scott Steinbreche 1403 Pamalynn Steinfeld 1404 Jake Steltenpohl 1405 Jolee Stevens 1406 Kim Stevens 1407 Nell Stevens 1408 Brianna Stewart 1409 Lemant Stewart 1410 Cristel Stinnett List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 1411 Dawn Stob 1412 Jeff Stob 1413 Joanne Stone 1414 Chris Stone 1415 Leilani Stone 1416 Abraha Strahan 1417 Jacob Stratton 1418 Anna Straud 1419 Samuel Stroschein 1420 Kelly Strunk 1421 Debbie Stumbaugh 1422 Brandon Suarez 1423 Adair Sullivan 1424 Gilda Sumner 1425 Jim Sumner 1426 Norm Sundholm 1427 Karen Susac 1428 Athena Sutton 1429 Dominic Sutton 1430 Nick Swagger 1431 David Swan 1432 Dillan Swank 1433 Barbara Swann 1434 Dakota Swann 1435 David Swanson 1436 La Tessa Sweeney 1437 Dean Swindler 1438 Angelina Tabora 1439 Jacky Tan 1440 Lingling Tan 1441 Muting Tan 1442 Ran Tao 1443 Cheallsey Tapper 1444 Alex Tassin 1445 Tosheba Tatum 1446 Brittany Taylor 1447 Christian Taylor 1448 Cynthia Taylor 1449 Ken Taylor 1450 Leonard Taylor 1451 Michael Taylor 1452 Oscar Tejeda 1453 David Telfer 1454 Kelly Telfer 1455 Mahlon Tellin 1456 Bob Temple 1457 Vaunell Temple List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 1458 Florence Tems 1459 Tricia Tennant 1460 Jannah Tepic 1461 Robert Terepka 1462 Dlaine Thomas 1463 Elizabeth Thompson 1464 Melissa Thompson 1465 Jack Thomson 1466 Judith Thomson 1467 Joann Thopson 1468 Judith Thorglinsson 1469 Lori Thornton 1470 Taci Thornton 1471 Lisa Threatt 1472 Tammy Threlkeld 1473 Kim Thurman 1474 Deborah Tilden 1475 Jo Ann Tillman 1476 Terri Timberman 1477 Terri Timberman 1478 Georgia Tingey 1479 Barbara Tingle 1480 Nabeeha Tirmizi 1481 Khauhi Tobias 1482 Latifa Tobias 1483 Maralyn Toma 1484 Greg Tomb 1485 Robin Tomb 1486 Dan Tomlin 1487 JJ Toole 1488 Kristen Torkelson 1489 Jill Tornay 1490 Paul Tornay 1491 Alya Torres 1492 Arnecia Townsell 1493 Justina Townsend 1494 Susan Tracy 1495 Riley Trapp 1496 Beverly Traugh 1497 Timothy Trimbell 1498 Tom Triplett 1499 Ekaterina Trofimova 1500 Kevin Trujillo 1501 Shania Trujillo 1502 Jade Truong 1503 Phillip Trussell 1504 Frank Tullius List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 1505 Sharron Tullius 1506 Paula Turner 1507 Patrick Tybor 1508 Alice Tye 1509 Bill Tye 1510 Rob Umpies? 1511 Alex Uvarov 1512 Naruto Uzumaki 1513 Pattie Vakovsky 1514 John Valdez 1515 Elizabeth Valentine 1516 Jana VanAmburg 1517 Becca Vance 1518 Malik Vaguer 1519 Megan Varnado 1520 Josh Vassil 1521 Nancy Vehjrostek 1522 William Vehjrostek 1523 Joyce Velzke 1524 Ronald Ventress 1525 Michelle Verrett 1526 Leah Vetsch 1527 Cynthia Viar 1528 Cierra Vickers 1529 Ankit Vij 1530 Maddux Vitrano 1531 Timothy Voelker 1532 Shannon Waddle 1533 Diane Wadsworth 1534 Dawn Waldrup 1535 Amanda Wallace 1536 Carol Wallace 1537 Jerry Wallace 1538 Linda Wallace 1539 Willie Wallace 1540 Bill Walling 1541 Erin Walling 1542 Sandy Walling 1543 Qiwei Wang 1544 Joyce Waring 1545 Stephen Waring 1546 Trason Washington 1547 Patty Jo Waters 1548 Maria Wattier 1549 Richard Wattier 1550 Larry Wayne 1551 Michael Wear List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 1552 Nancy Webb 1553 Kierra Webb 1554 Barbara Weber 1555 Steve Weber 1556 John Webre 1557 Terri Weedon 1558 Diane Weller 1559 Max Weller 1560 Wes Weller 1561 Maggie Wenzel 1562 Erica Wescott 1563 Cameron Wetzel 1564 Charles Whisler 1565 Ethan Whitaker 1566 Jim Whitaker 1567 Mary Whitaker 1568 Alexa White 1569 Jennifer White 1570 Rasheid White 1571 Willette Whitfield 1572 Ken Whitlatch 1573 Susan Whitley 1574 Logan Wickline 1575 Melanie Widmer 1576 Sid Widmer 1577 Joe Wierzba 1578 Shelly Wierzba 1579 Amandzo Williams 1580 Cullen Williams 1581 David Williams 1582 Jerrell Williams 1583 Qujewelia Williams 1584 Sharon Williams 1585 Jarred Williams 1586 Joel Williams 1587 Bonita Williamsen 1588 Steve Williamsen 1589 Alex Williamson 1590 Julie Willis 1591 Piernas Wills 1592 Robert Wills 1593 Abigail Wilson 1594 Alex Wilson 1595 Ashanti Wilson 1596 Jeremy Winfield 1597 Doug Winger 1598 Lorraine Winger List of people who have submitted public comments or signed a petition in opposition to marijuana in rural Deschutes County 1599 Janet Wingerter 1600 Erica Winn 1601 Justin Winn 1602 Kristi Wise 1603 Shannon Witcraft 1604 Jesse Wobson 1605 Jon Wolf 1606 Kim Wolfe 1607 Toni Wolfe 1608 Debra Wollese 1609 David Wood 1610 Devin Woodall 1611 Darla Wood -Walters 1612 Jarod Wright 1613 Karane Wright 1614 Ron Wright 1615 Trisha Wright 1616 Tyler Wrightson 1617 Allen Wulf 1618 Don Xab 1619 David Yagdayev 1620 Ray Yancey 1621 Thomas Yates 1622 Kexin Ye 1623 Zhou Yongsheng 1624 Dan Young 1625 Justin Young 1626 Karen Young 1627 Lewis Young 1628 Ron Young 1629 Sanedra Young 1630 Bobby Yousefi 1631 Jessica Yozamp 1632 Gabrielle Yusuf 1633 Mariya Yzhikova 1634 Lana Zalt 1635 Vanessa Zamora 1636 Walter Zelaya 1637 Jiaying Zhang 1638 Chenxi Zhao 1639 Ashley Zhao 1640 Ashley Zhao 1641 Zane Zhu 1642 Crystal Zimmerman 1643 Charlie Zito 1644 Deanie Zulkoski n { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: Date: Agenda Item Number: Name /3//1/)/y 1. Address"' 7,C day o otz 977c--/1 Phone #s SC//' �' ZC-3 E-mail address /3/Z4/2111,9-a7g43 GAL In Favor of Application Neutral/Undecided pposed to Application Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. ** SUBMIT TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: Date: Agenda Item Number: Name L d (opI~yt t-ia-, -3 a -e) t/(l - U10 Address Z2),(Aro( q 7) Phone #s Si l' / 5 Q r (� E-mail address 6-i. C, Vit. 62 -6 h^e ` In Favor of Application Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Application Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Yes ** SUBMIT TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS No BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: %�'¢^�-� /74- Avid, Agenda Item Number: / Name - c V n �a v t41', Date: 7 - ' - 2&/7 Address 2- a, O% cid ci 701 Phone #s 7i 2. 0 E-mail address In Favor of Application Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Application I pre,,. s i c re tA I anttiPii Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Yes xi No ** SUBMIT TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS -1" ES o fBOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: XYt �J}� � `-P.ANIIWink- _Date: Agenda Item Number: Name � �- Q-kAL .4 Address Phone #s 9 } 12,0 - 3' E-mail address In Favor of Application Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Application Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? Pel Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. INLan ** SUBMIT TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS Subject: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony E �A n t V 1 a Date: Agenda Item Number: Name ol)c)0 (1,VL Address Phone #s )?,35m) c3- I 4-0lv O(ir(olo E-mail address r0 In Favor of Application Neutral/Undecided reeA7 Opposed to Application Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record: # (/(Y),(31), cm,ron ** SUBMIT TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS CW1-1-9 a)-1- L'ff") No (7e7i4la-1.& 'I"cJ omer6 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: M a_r ,,tct (AA, Agenda Item Number: Date: '07j t�3�i Name Ca pf a v rn C- ,a ,64--e4.-- on hu l c h ,� ISO �--, Address (j3 3.33 1-1vo'c Phone #s 30g-1°'SS E-mail address de r©n o() 1 disc-Gl a.:-eS. or3. In Favor of Application Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Application Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Yes ** SUBMIT TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS To whom it may concern, I am in opposition of continuing to allow marijuana grows in Deschutes County. I respectfully request the County Commissioners to vote to opt out of future marijuana grows instead of reconsidering 2018-012 to establish 2019-012. Name Printed: `E( Address: s`,7 l 0 .. 991 -Da, Date: Signature: To whom it may concern, I am in opposition of continuing to allow marijuana grows in Deschutes County. I respectfully request the County Commissioners to vote to opt out of future marijuana grows instead of reconsidering 2018-012 to establish 2019-012. Name Printed: j (27 Address: Date: Signature: o (iiii (5 it 7 o 2